Talk:Christian Legal Centre

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110525202605/http://www.lawcf.org/index.asp?page=Case+Wins+and+Launch+of+Christian+Legal+Centre to http://www.lawcf.org/index.asp?page=Case+Wins+and+Launch+of+Christian+Legal+Centre
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091226205921/http://www.christianlegalcentre.com:80/mediacentre.php?avid=120&avap=1 to http://www.christianlegalcentre.com/mediacentre.php?avid=120&avap=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101231231438/http://www.christianlegalcentre.com/view.php?id=1035 to http://www.christianlegalcentre.com/view.php?id=1035

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

"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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

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)


 * Hopefully this edit fixed that. SmartSE (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)