Talk:Christian Legal Centre

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Christian Legal Centre article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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

Politics of the United Kingdom

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

More information:
/
	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.

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 18 December 2008 by reviewer MSGJ (talk · contribs).

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Abortion

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion 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.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Fundamentalist organization?

Hi everyone,

I see that this article is part of Category:Christian fundamentalism. Are there any references that say it is a fundamentalist organization?

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The director Andrea Minichiello Williams is definitely a fundamentalist, so I think it qualifies. (She believes that the world was literally created in six days). -- 77.103.71.10 (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the category with this edit. I recommend that an article that classifies a group as being fundamentalist should at least mention "fundamentalism" or "fundamentalist" in the body of the article.

Feel free to revert my edit, and also add a sentence about the "fundamentalist" beliefs of its director. --Kevinkor2 (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dismissed or Discontinued? =

The private prosecution on the Gateshead statue is described as 'dismissed' by the CPS. In my view this should be replaced by 'discontinued'. It appears never to have been considered by a court, simply evidentially reviewed by Crown lawyers and a decision made that there was 'no case to answer'. The word dismissed suggests that a court heard the case, found no merit and aquitted a defendant. 90.207.166.54 (talk) 09:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, plus the BBC News article used for that part of the article quotes the CPS as saying that it has been 'discontinued'. I've updated the article. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 09:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, that's not a notable case, indeed it is barely a case if at all. Midgley (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Christian Legal Centre. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 18:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Official link incorrect for 10+ years?

Hi, I have updated the link to the official website which pointed to a site that stopped existing in July 2011 according to web.archive.org. I have also tried to update the Wikidata accordingly but that didn't seem to be reflected on this page, not sure if I did something wrong or if there is a delay in updating?

I have also not published a reference but any search engine will point to the correct URL. If I did something wrong, please correct, thanks for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iermi (talk • contribs) 16:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have now updated the link from Wikidata, the error was coming from the rank being incorrect. Iermi (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funding

Who funds them, and what is their nature, affiliation, and intention? Midgley (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Layout of "Notable cases" section

The current layout makes it look as if the two quotations apply to the Battersbee case. They don't. They are from the Chaplin case. S C Cheese (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This problem has been removed by the new tabular layout of "Notable Cases". — Preceding unsigned comment added by S C Cheese (talk • contribs) 15:49, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability, itself. In what sense are the cases notable other than because this organisation has involved itself (causing noise and trouble). What criterial constitute notability in this context? Not exactly WP:NOTABLE ? People being fired for defying clear and ordinary instructions from their employer are not notable cases, they raise no novel or ordinary point of law whose settlement moves us forward. The late Archie Battersbee didn't show some new piece of medical knowledge or practice, and being resolved has not changed how we do things. I suppose there might be something notable in the cases they have selected, but an exhaustive list of them (if that list is all of their cases) isn't properly labelled "notable". Midgley (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"High" Profile

What are the criteria for deciding that a case is high profile? And actually, how useful is the phrase? "important" is more or less implied, but these ... are not. Midgley (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree that the phrase is unhelpful; I have removed it from the article. I would say that the "notable cases" list should only include cases that have their own Wikipedia articles; even if they do not raise "novel or ordinary point of law" - as you say above - the media coverage shows that they are still notable in the eyes of the public.

But I'm not sure how relevant it is to have any sort of list of cases in this article in the first place - we keep saying that we are not a newspaper, after all. These should probably summarise what the CLC has said in these cases - quite easy to do - and incorporate that into the main text of the article. – QueenofBithynia (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with all of that. At most, "cases", abd I expect both they and Baillie keep lists of those. I suspect notability to a lawyer is when the judgement in one case is the cause of the outcome of a later case, IE precedent. IANAL. Midgley (talk) 21:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of Felix Ngole section

I believe there are neutrality issues with the section on Felix Ngole's case, as it is not written in an encyclopedic tone and has clear neutrality issues. For example, see the unsourced statement: His comments were deemed homophobic, despite him simply quoting the Bible. Wracking ^💬 23:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wracking: Hopefully this edit fixed that. SmartSE (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete .

Article is rubbish, CLC not mentioned on the only high stakes case that has a link, they lost nearly all others, and if you read a little deeper are supported by very very few local people, seems like here, on wiki, to give credence to rubbish2404:4408:9A01:8000:7488:C601:D86B:779B (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]