Talk:Lawyers' Christian Fellowship

Oct 09 POV concerns
'Questionable' is meaningless here, in wikipedia terms. 'Controversial' would be far better term.

The biggest problem with this page, again in wikipedia terms, is the poportion of the article given over to one television programme about one member of the LCF. I think this needs more balance.

Sarah the poet (talk) 08:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I stand by my attempts to even out this section of the article. Currently, it is still biased against Mrs Williams, citing only extreme reactions against her in the external links, and jibing at her views. "Questionable" is not good language for WP. Also, I stand by my changes to the wording "children raised in same sex families will not finish school", to "may not". Either the wording in the article is verbatim from her comments, in which case please add quotation marks, or, if it is not, please let me fix this, unless you of course can find any actual statements where she goes this far. Kan8eDie (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * With all due respect your first edit states that the following are widely held views that Mrs. Williams confirmed


 * 1. Islam is a false religion
 * 2. Children raised in same sex families may under-achieve, become drug dependent, or grow up to be gender confused.


 * Here you have tagged a statement as dubious, in spite of the fact that evidence to the contrary exists; this is what she stated, it's on camera, we can ask for the transcripts if you like.
 * Another edit claims the link is dead but it appears to link correctly to the Channel Four Dispatches page for the program so I'm not sure why it's there.


 * Do you contend that what Mrs. Williams beliefs are mainstream views?
 * The article states what was presented in the program, nothing more, nothing less, it's really that simple.
 * In the context of the program (lobbying) the views were presented as questionable, insofar as they were presented by someone interested in influencing policy. Measles (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, I am sorry for stirring up what it turns out were controversial edits. I saw what I perceived as POV writing, and tweaked some phrasing to try and clear that up. I may as well carry on discussing this though and reach a conclusion.
 * For a start, the views are certainly "more" widely held than a 4000 year age for the earth. I am not quite sure how Mrs Williams confirmed these statements, but the programme seems to make it clear she affirmed them. Confirmation would mean she somehow demonstrated they were true, which I somehow doubt she did. Our article should say she affirmed them, meaning that she says she declares to hold these views. Regarding the specific statements, "Islam is a false religion" is believed by a majority of the population of the earth at the moment (roughly half, in fact). Your second statement is also controversially phrased, but the assertion that one of the three eventualities may follow is also, I suspect, more widely held than more minority opinions such as young-earth views.


 * I specifically disputed the phrasing which I modified, namely the difference between "will" and "may", under the strong suspicion that "will" (implying it always happens) represents a distorting strengthening of her opinion. The second deadlink tag was my sloppy mistake. Sorry about that slight spanner in the works; at least some things are easily rectified.


 * Your final sentence on "questionable" is not clear to me.Kan8eDie (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

More POV concerns
I'm concerned that there seems to be an on-going attempt to dumb-down the controversy section by using the title 'media coverage' and by adding non-controversial (and not especially note-worthy) material to it. The Controversy section was specifically concerned with 'controversy' relating to the organisation, and not general media coverage. I'm going to split the section into two. The controversy element of it is notable, and does warrant its own section. Santa Suit (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I am equally concerned that there seems to be an unbalanced focus on the potentially negative espects about this organisation, to the extent that material is included about members' personal lives. The neutrality and balance of this article are in danger of being adversely affected. Christianinthelaw (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 'member's personal lives' - I presume you're referring to the reference I inserted, about Mark Mullins being reprimanded by the Bar Council for refusing to represent a gay client? The incident occurred in his 'professional life', not his 'personal life', and was widely reported at the time. It is both noteworthy and relevant to the article, in the context of him being LCF Regional Chairman at the time. Santa Suit (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The Dispatches story is relevant here because it is a story about an employee of LCF making comments in the course of their duties. The story about Mark Mullins is not connected to LCF other than in an unconnected role he had responsibilities for LCF.  The organisation has over 2000 members, and we can have sections about all of them if they happen to make the news.  Christianinthelaw (talk) 09:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * In my opinion it's relevant because he was more than just a 1-in-2000 member; he held a significant position within the organisation. Is there, at least, concensus that the Dispatches story is most suitably placed in a 'Controversy' section? Santa Suit (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The article has improved a lot in the last month and I suggest we keep the layout as it is, without the Mullins reference, and with the Dispatches story in a seperate section; either "Controversy" or "Dispatches controversy". Obscurasky (talk) 11:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I also agree that the Dispatches material is relevant, and should be in the controversy section while Mark Mullins material is not relevant to this article. Christianinthelaw (talk) 15:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Link to Dispatches Programme
A quick question: the link to the Dispatches programme is dead; it is not possible to view the programme. The link instead goes to the general channel four page. It seems appropriate to delete the link and possibly some of the material quoting from the programme's content? Does anyone have an opinion on this? Christianinthelaw (talk) 09:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Two points;


 * You, yourself, have added quite a large chunk of text to this section which has only questionable relevance.
 * Much of the recent activity on this page has apparently been an attempt to play down the controvsy element of the article (even to the extent of removing it completely).
 * If your motivation is to improve the article, and not just improve the image of LCF, then go ahead, but have you even checked for alternative links? Obscurasky (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just deleted the quote, in the Controversy section, added by Christianinthelaw. It is more than just of 'questionable relevance' it is quite irrelevant. Had the open letter been from the LCF it would have been relevant, but the Evangelical Alliance are not connected with the LCF and so their opinion of the programme should not be included on this page. Santa Suit (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. I think the controversy section now looks balanced and informative as things stand so thanks for the input.  On the question of interest, it surely must be possible to edit neutrally while being interested in the subject; I have tried to do so.  On the question of relevance, in a section on a controversial documentary, an open letter to the documentary maker specifically mentioning the LCF staff member from a body recongised as representative of the group examined in the documentary (evangelicals) seems at least arguably relevant. In any event, thanks for the help. Christianinthelaw (talk) 14:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

youtube
youtube is not a reliable source per WP:RSEX. Contentious material about a living person which is poorly sourced must be removed per WP:BLP. Do not restore content sourced to youtube: it will be deleted. Lionel (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Santa, discussion re: Controversy heretofore was based on this, which doesn't work now. You added the youtube source. Well, you can't replace a reliable source with an unreliable source. The discussion above only applies when the sourcing is reliable. Withour reliable sourcing, in the case of BLP, the content must be removed. I strongly sugest that you refrain from adding youtube references, particularly for BLP. Lionel (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If the same content was there when it was sourced to the no-longer-online version, then the content needn't be deleted, just an old reference to the source restored. Content should be sourced to a WP:RS, but it needn't be a currently-online source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This issue moot. At the time of the Dispatches program Williams had already left LCF and was head of Christian Concern. This content is properly on topic there. Lionel (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Freethinker Comment
Re: Comment section, Freethinker editorial comment on In Gods Name Documentary link. Quick Question: is this relevant on the LCF wiki page? Strikes me that if the Evangelical Alliance response is not relevant, then neither is this. Thoughts? Christianinthelaw (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Reads like an advert
The article reads like an advert, and provides little information from a NPOV. The lead doesn't even say what LCF actually is - just how many members it has and what it's 'vision' is! Obscurasky (talk) 08:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree completely - also, just looking at recent edits and this talk page, there may be some potential conflict of interest concerns with users and  (based off usernames alone). I have tagged the page for POV and would appreciate any help in improving the article. QueenofBithynia (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)