Talk:Christian Concern

orphan article
An article is defined as an orphan when no other Wikipedia articles link to it. User pages, project pages, and redirects do not count. If this topic has adequate notability, you should have no problem finding other articles in Wikipedia to link to this article.--Appraiser (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I did link Wikipedian articles to this thing, as well as sources, and links, although I'm having trouble fixing the links. While there may not have been that many wikipedian articles before I got there, they did exist. DanTD (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What article links here?--Appraiser (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you mean "What articles link here?" Did you even read the thing? DanTD (talk) 05:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Go to the article page and click, "What links here" in the toolbox. Currently no other Wikipedia article link to this one. That is the definition of an orphan article.--Appraiser (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"Only 4000 years old"
Is that misreporting?, or an editing error here? Or was it a slip of the tongue? Even someone using Ussher's chronology and including the period AD the total would come to over 6000 years old! DFH (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems like an error to me also. She is a living person and we have to make sure that we do not libel her per WP:BLP. We need a quote from the source to verify these contentious claims. Lionel (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is cited in the David Modell broadsheet newspaper articles. Nevertheless I removed it from the article because (as far as I know) Christian Concern does not campaign for creationist education, therefore Williams' personal view on the origin of the earth is not relevant. It has just been reinstated by Semitransgenic with the edit summary add world's age claim, stated on camera (see footage), reported in article cited, no BLP issue. I propose to remove it again as it lacks notability or relevance for Christian Concern. As for see footage, is the programme still available online? It has been removed from C4 and Youtube. – Fayenatic (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Williams is the CEO of Christian Concern. That such an organisation is headed by an individual (a barrister) with views that are clearly at odds with scientific consensus is noteworthy in the context of an encyclopaedic article about a Christian lobby group: one that has, judging by its website, a very clear religiously motivated political agenda. The fact that the footage is unavailable does not mean the statement wasn't made (and that's why the Modell article is cited). -- Semitransgenic  talk. 21:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. WP:BLP requires us to "remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced".  A statement sourced to a TV broadcast of which no copy is available is at best poorly sourced.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * the source, the UK Independent newspaper, adheres to WP:RS, best take this to the appropriate noticeboard if the sources reliability is in doubt. -- Semitransgenic talk. 22:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The article in the Independent states "She believes that abortion should be illegal, homosexuality is sinful and the world is just 4,000 years old." It does not support the assertion in the article that During the programme, Williams also made a number of controversial statements, including her views that the Human Fertilisation Bill was 'the work of the devil', that abortion should be illegal, that homosexuality is sinful, and that the world is just 4,000 years old.  In particular, it fails to support the assertion that she made these statements on camera, and does not support the value-judgement "controversial".  Furthermore, the article is by the make of the TV programme in question, and therefore is not an independent source for its contents.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * article was published by the Independent, an RS source, about events that took place during the filming of a notable current affairs program (Dispatches) that is produced by a notable TV channel (Channel 4. I fail to see how this is unreliably sourced. Are you disputing that AMW made this statement? -- Semitransgenic talk. 23:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

BLP concerns are valid. We need solid sourcing and consensus to add this to the article. Removing per WP:BLP and WP:CON. – Lionel (talk) 07:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I am saying that the assertion in the article, that she made the claim on the programme, is not verified by the sources currently cited. The film itself is apparently unavailable, so that readers cannot independently verify for themselves what it may contain.  The article about the film by its maker states that AMW believes this, but does not state that she said so on film.  There is therefore no verification that she said this in the film.
 * This is the main issue: there are other. For example, the article uses the word "controversial".  What source is that describes her views in this way: that is, what source claims there there was a controversy about her statements?  Another point, alluded to above, is the extent to which AMW's views are relevant to an article about this organisation.  Are there sources that explicitly state that the organisation follows her views because they are hers, or that her views are at odds with those of the organisation.  What independent reliable source discusses these issues?  Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Additional. The New Stateman citation says "A Channel 4 investigation the same year revealed that the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship, for which Williams then served as public policy director, had received money from a US organisation called the Alliance Defense Fund that aims to "aggressively defend religious liberty" through litigation." and "Williams believes that abortion should be illegal, homosexuality is sinful and the world is 4,000 years old."  It does not support the assertion that she made this claim on film.  It may seem like a small point but we must get these things right.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * this is wilful ignorance.It may help to present edited excerpts of the documentary on the talk page, using the fair use provision, i will see what i can dig up.-- Semitransgenic talk. 23:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's about getting it right. You may be personally sure that something was said in the film, you may indeed be right that something was said in the film, but "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"  If you know of a reliable source that a reader can go to verify what was said in the film, by all means say so here or add it to the article.  Otherwise, we cannot report what was said in the film, because it is not verified.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Excuse my lack of editing skills but I believe you're looking for this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gqhlRdOxJg  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.92.194 (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Rename
The group has now officially changed its name. I propose to move the contents of this page to Christian Concern and change this page to a redirect. Obscurasky (talk) 08:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, no debate required. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Channel 4 documentary
I cannot see a citation linking this organisation specifically to the channel 4 documentary 'In God's Name'. The organisation was formed after the documentary was broadcast and so there would need to be a reliable independent source specifically identifying with the subject of the film. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The 'Controversy' section is entirely about this film, and I have deleted it again pending a reliable source that links this organsation to the subject matter of the film, which appears to be about the LCF. Please could we see verification by some such sources before it is added again  Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (Comments also at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard)
 * It seems to me that this can be resolved by returning to first principles: verification by reliable sources. It is claimed that the section "Controversy" should discuss a film made about the activities of the LCF at a time before CCFON was founded.  For this to be sustainable we need to find independent reliable sources that verify (1) that the film is, or documents, a controversy (2) that the film is substantially about an identifiable group X and (3) that X is substantially identical with CCFON.  Ideally we would have a single source for all three assertions, since to source each spearately runs the risk of synthesis, expecially this there is scope for undistributed middle term between 2 and 3.  Currently the section is sourced to two stories in reliable newspapers, each of which is a first-person article by the film-maker, David Modell, and each of which predates the formation of CCFON.  It is therefore questionable whether they can be regarded as independent.  Even if they are, each story states that the film is about LCF and in particular Andrea Williams, its public policy director; neither story claims that the film is a "controversy" about LCF; neither story identifies any group within LCF as the subject; and of course neither mentions CCFON.  So currently we have nothing in independent reliable sources that sustains this section.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Trying to separate out the BLP issue from this one. The current state of the article does not show sufficient connection between this subject and the documentary.  The sources refer to LCF or to AMW as an individual.  There is no mention of CCFON.  Is there any reliable source that suggests that this organisation was even mentioned in the film?  If not, this material is WP:UNDUE for this article and should be transferred to The Lawyers' Christian Fellowship.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sigh! Obscurasky (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That would be a "no", then? As in "no, there are no such sources"?  Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * While I'm prepared to assume goodwill here, the frustrating thing for me is that the overwhelming number of your edits give the impression of someone who is motivated by the desire to remove anything critical of CC (and I think I'm right in saying that, on more than one occasion, you have actually blanked this section before, citing various reasons). If you're not happy that there is enough evidence to link the documentry with CC why don't you look for evidence instead of yet again proposing the removal of a perfectly relevant material? Obscurasky (talk) 11:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Speculation about my or your motves is inappropriate here.
 * I am concerned to make sure that assertions in this article are verified by citations to reliable sources which other people should be able to check. It appears that there are no such sources cited at present, and the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.  Do you know of such sources?  If so, please give a reference either here or in the article.  However, since you ask me to "look for evidence", I assume that you actually know of none.  This material may indeed be "perfectly relevant" as claimed, and I certainly agree that it would be if it can be verified.  But so far it is not verified that this documentary even mentions CCFON.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I notice that Williams has recently been voted onto the General Synod too, and I was wondering if she might now be sufficiently significant enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry of her own? Obscurasky (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not? She has featured prominently in a Channel 4 documentary as well, it seems.  Are there reliable sources for elementary biodata such as date and place of birth, education, and so on?  Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * the documentary related content is notable in terms of the direct correlation that exists between AMW, CC, CLC, and LCF. CCFON was at the time of the documentary an activist wing of LCF operated by AMW. After the documentary, LCF sought to give the appearance of distancing themselves from AMW, CCFON became an independent entity, and the name changed to CC. No consensus exists for the removal of the content.-- Semitransgenic talk. 10:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The question is not whether it is "notable" but whether it is verified by citations to reliable sources. At present that is not the case - there is simply no citation currently in the article to any reliable source stating that CCFON is even mentioned in the film, and if you know of one then please bring it forward..  The statement that "CCFON was at the time of the documentary an activist wing of LCF operated by AMW" is verifiable and in the article.  It is indeed quite possible that CCFON was mentioned in the film, but to deduce that it must have been mentioned is at worst speculation and at best original research by means of synthesis.  The statement that "LCF sought to give the appearance of distancing themselves from AMW" is unsourced and could in itself be a violation of WP:BLP, which applies even on talk pages.  "CCFON became an independent entity, and the name changed to CC" is verified and in the article in its proper place.  To connect this with the documentary, in the absence of reliable sources making that connection, is again synthesis.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

BLP concerns
I have removed some material about living people because the links used to support them are dead. Since the material is contentious, this material needs a reliable source to be reinstated. Cusop Dingle (talk) 11:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You've also removed the 'Controversy' section, which was well referenced. Actually, neally all you recent edits seem more concerned with removing any form of critical content. If a link is dead, you could try finding an alternative? Obscurasky (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The 'Controversy' section is entirely about the Channel 4 film discussed above. I am concerned about material that is not verified by reliable sources.  If you know of sources, feel free to add them.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You have not adequately explained why you feel the reference to the Channel 4 documentary is in conflict with reliable sources. The reference would seem to me to adequately confirm the information contained in that section. It might sound an obvious statement, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and needs be impartial. Removing material on the basis that it appears to paint an organisation in a bad light should not be a motivation for edits Obscurasky (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This discussion should really be under the previous section, since it isn't about the BLP issue. However, I won't move it.  The single source quoted, Telegraph May 2008, interviews the maker of this film and discusses the activities of the LCF.  The source gives no indication that the CCFON is in any way discussed in that film or involved in those activities.  The words "Christian Concern" or "CFON" do not appear in the article at all.  Hence we have a section entirely about a different organisation, LCF, supported by a single source which does not mention this organisation at all.  Such a section does not belong in this article.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a citation which confirms the group's status, as being part of LCF at the time of the documentary; here, and also gives the reason for the split ("we decided to set up on our own so as not to jeopardise the charitable status of the LCF".
 * I've also reinserted a reworded version of the 'Controversy section'. Obscurasky (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that reference made it into the article. However, it does help to clarify matters.  Are you sure that www.e-n.org.uk is a reliable source?  This is a BLP issue the way you have edited the 'Controversy' section.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I forgot to include the citation - I've done it now.


 * I've also just read the BLP page and am happy that what is written in the 'Controversy section' does not conflict with any of the principles listed there. Obscurasky (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have linked the citation using www.e-n.org.uk to the article on the newspaper Evangelicals Now. Yes, it is WP:RS albeit with a Christian agenda.
 * See also Neutral point of view/Noticeboard where concerns have been escalated about this page and its edit history. – Fayenatic (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This discussion has strayed from the BLP issue into the question of whether CCFON is or was a part of LCF. Assuming that the source www.e-n.org.uk is a reliable source, then we have to address the fact that the citation is an interview with Andrea Minichiello Williams, and is reporting rather than endorsing her comments.  It ,may indded for a reliable source for her having stated that "We continued to work as part of the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship [...] until June 2008 when we decided to set up on our own so as not to jeopardise the charitable status of the LCF." but it is not a reliable source for what is asserted, since it is not stated by a reporter.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm not sure whether I understand the distinction that you are making. Are you looking for a source for LCF's Public Policy division being hived off as CCFON, and requiring that this source should be independent of (i) LCF, (ii) CCFON and (iii) Williams? WP:SELFPUB says that Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, with five conditions that are all met in this case, so no further source is needed. – Fayenatic (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am saying that Williams's statement may be used as a statement about herself. Since she is not CCFON, her statements about CCFON are better attributed to her rather than stated as if they had been asserted by the reliable source itself.  In terms of SPS, we can use Williams as a source about herself so long as "(2) it does not involve claims about third parties".
 * It seems that "LCF's Public Policy division being hived off as CCFON" is not correct, or at least, is not supported by any source I can see. The Williams interview says "We" without any clear antecedent (it appears to refer to herself); I know of no source that describes CCFON as being substantially identical with the LCF Public Policy unit, and I found one source that describes CCFON in 2007 as a network run out of the Public Policy unit (in particular, as being distinct from it).  But the answer to your question is that I am looking for sources that describe the relationship between CCFON and LCF -- reliable, published sources which are appropriate for the content in question.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Williams described that network as an "email network" in Christian Today, i.e. it is fancy word for a mailing list. According to press releases on both their websites, LCF/CCFON were the same entity in 2007.(LCF) (CCFON) This church website (archived) has an old CCFON page including: "Our Mission - Christian Concern for our Nation (CCFON) is a cross-denominational non-profit making organisation born out of the work of the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship Public Policy Unit." Still need more? – Fayenatic (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This uses the wording "The Lawyers‘ Christian Fellowship/ Christian Concern for our Nation" twice and this uses the wording "the Lawyer's Christian Fellowship/ Christian Concern for Our Nation". Neither makes any kind of statement about the relationship between the two entities.  The phrase "organisation born out of the work of the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship Public Policy Unit" appears to specifcally negate the identity of the two organisations.  So these sources simply do not support the identification of LCF and CCFON, and one positively contradicts the assertion "LCF/CCFON were the same entity in 2007".  But my point is precisely that we do not decide such issues here at Wikipedia.  We go by what reliable sources say.  If sources assert the identity of CCFON with LCF, or the LCF PPU, then we report that.  If they do not, then we do not.  What we do not do is original research based on a synthesis of close textual readings of press releases.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that "born out of", written one year after the separation, negates the former identity of the organisations before CCFON was incorporated. Here's CCFON about itself:  A New Season for CCFON Begins - 1st July 2008. July 1 2008, was a historic day in the life of Christian Concern for our Nation. From its initial growth as part of the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship, CCFON is now establishing itself as an independent body. (Unfortunately the linked page for "More" was not archived.) Seriously, I don't think this is WP:OR or WP:SYN. – Fayenatic (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And I do not agree that "born out of", written one year after the separation, supports any particular statement about what the relationship between CCFON and LCF was in, say 2007; and it certainly does not support the assertion "LCF/CCFON were the same entity in 2007". Let us get down to specifics.  Try to draft a definite statement that the article might include about what the relationship between CCFON and LCF was in, say 2007, and then we can see whether or not it is supported by sources.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In 2007 CT Australia (above) called it a "network" (mailing list) run by the public policy arm of LCF. In the same year CT also called it the "lay arm of" LCF, i.e. as opposed to professional lawyers. Now it is a sister organisation of LCF (Guardian 2011). That's all for tonight... – Fayenatic (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

(←) The article currently states Before 2008 the organisation was a network run from The Lawyers' Christian Fellowship's Public Policy Unit, headed by Andrea Minichiello Williams and cites Christian Today Australia 2007. It is clear and explicit, and I see nothing in the sources adduced that either contradicts or materially adds to or changes that description: the phrase "lay-arm", for example, appears to confirm it. In particular it is clear that the organisation in 2007 was not substantially identical to LCF. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * About the LCF/CCFON press releases using the joint names above: those were just samples of many in their archives from that period. Anyway, I have just added a description into the article from CCFON (2006) (at archive.org) which provides a very clear self-description: Christian Concern for our Nation (CCFON) is an activity of the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship Public Policy Unit. It is a service for non-lawyers who want to be equipped to understand, act and respond to the increasing number of legal issues impacting the Gospel and Biblical justice at the heart of our society. CCFON consists of a website and e-mail update service supported by an active team of lawyers. Pardon my adding it without checking here first, but it seems particularly clear and helpful. It adds to and clarifies both "network" (already cited in the article from CT Australia) and "lay-arm" (only quoted here). – Fayenatic (talk) 08:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just located their 2008 launch message too: (archived) – Fayenatic (talk) 08:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Good, this is the way to go, following the sources. Independent sourcing would be even better.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Style

 * I've removed "evangelical activist" from the section as it's unnecessary and might be seen as POV, and the reference to the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship being a sister organisation; because that isn't correct. I've also changed the Modell quote regarding Williams; Anyone who's seen the Dispatches documentry will be aware that it was HIGHLY critical of Williams. If we're only going to use one quote, I don't believe that him saying Williams is "a colourful and powerful campaigner for the implementation of radical Christian views" acurately reflects his overall commentry about her. Obscurasky (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We go by what can be verified by independent reliable sources. What sources are there that describe Modell's view of Williams?  And what sources verify that this footage was included in the film?  Given that the film does not appear to be available, it seems that citing the film does not satisfy the requirement of WP:V that other people should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't cite the film(?) and the quote I used comes directly from the existing reference. There was no need to revert my edit, other than to use a quote that paints Williams in a more favourable light than was portrayed in the documentary. And, again, the Lawyers Christian Fellowship is not, nor ever was, a sister organisation. If anything, the LCF was a parent organisation. Obscurasky (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Responding to the last two sentences: IMHO it's fair to describe LCF as the original parent, but it's no longer in a parent relationship, and the Guardian 2011 citation linked above described them now as sister orgs. – Fayenatic (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

False BLP claims and sourced content removal

 * It's generally bad practice to wave a BLP flag because one disagrees with reliably sourced content. The New Statesman, The Independent,  and The Telegraph  all conform with WP:RS.
 * Additionally, regarding the deletion of an entire section the content is attributable to the CC website, there is no POV issue, they clearly state the following:
 * "...in the last few decades the nation has largely turned her back on Jesus and embraced alternative ideas such as secular liberal humanism, moral relativism and sexual licence. The fruit of this is rotten, and can be seen in widespread family breakdown, immorality and social disintegration....We want to be a strong Christian voice in the public sphere, arguing passionately for the truth of the Gospel and defending the historic freedoms that we have enjoyed in this nation for so long.We believe that by doing so, society as a whole will benefit. We seek to highlight injustice, change public opinion on issues of key importance and affect policy at the highest levels.We engage on a broad large range of issues, including abortion,adoption and fostering, bioethics, marriage, education, employment, end of life, equality, family, free speech, Islamism, religious freedom, the sex trade, social issues and issues relating to sexual orientation."-- Semitransgenic talk. 10:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's generally bad practice to wave a BLP flag because one disagrees with reliably sourced content. Indeed.  If you think someone has done that, please provide a diff.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Confusing citations
I removed the citations Jenkins, P. (2007),God's continent: Christianity, Islam, and Europe's religious crisis, Oxford University Press, (p.278) and 'Chastity ring' girl loses case BBC News, Monday, 16 July 2007 from the section "2008 Channel 4 documentary controversy" because I think they are misplaced at best. Each of them dates from 2007 and hence they are not capable of supporting any assertions about what happened in 2008. The first is placed after the text "Investigative journalist David Modell followed Christian Concern's CEO Andrea Minichiello Williams, an evangelical activist" but does not support that claim: the text on that page only mentions AMW and describes her in passing as an evangelical activist. I think thatg is misleading in this context. The second is placed after the text "who at the time was public policy director of the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship, the organisation's sister group." The reference does not mention AMW, and of course a 2007 story cannot possibly support the statement that she held any post "at the time" of 2008. What the story does do is describe CCFON as "the LCF's sister group". Again this is misleading in context. The references are placed in a way which makes them appear to support more than they actually do. That is why I removed them. It seems they have been inserted again. Why is that? Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sentence: "The organisation was founded by barrister and evangelical activist Andrea Minichiello Williams."


 * We are stating four things: 1) there is a person called Andrea Minichiello Williams, 2) she is the founder of CC, 3) she is a barrister, 4) she is an evangelical activist.
 * The two cites located at the end of the statement support everything stated above. I see no problem.


 * Sentence: "Investigative journalist David Modell followed Christian Concern's Andrea Minichiello Williams, who at the time was also public policy director of the organisation's then sister group, Lawyers' Christian Fellowship."
 * The BBC cite cleary states: "the LCF's sister group Christian Concern for our Nation."
 * The New Statesman states: "The organisation [CLC] is headed by Andrea Minichiello Williams, an activist who was behind several protests against legislation on embryology research and outlawing homophobic discrimination in 2008. A Channel 4 investigation the same year revealed that the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship, for which Williams then served as public policy director..."


 * The connections between the various organisations mentioned in the article (CCON, CC, CLC, LCF), are both evident and cited. If you need more cites to support the fact that Williams is: 1) founder of CC, 2) founder of CLC, 3) a one time public policy director of LCF we can add them. -- Semitransgenic talk. 12:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think these comments tend to support my case. I argue that the citations in question do not adequately support the sentences they follow.  This reply
 * comments on the sentence ""The organisation was founded by barrister and evangelical activist Andrea Minichiello Williams." which is not one of the sentences referred to
 * comments on a News Statesman reference, which is not one of the citations referred to
 * comments on the connections between the various organisations mentioned, which is not a topic referred to
 * So this reply argues that other citations support other sentences in the article. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed the BBC cite again, since there is now a better reference for that assertion. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Funding
What is their funding? What else is funded by it? Midgley (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)