Talk:Christian Concern

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: What article links here?--Appraiser (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean "What articles link here?" Did you even read the thing? ----DanTD (talk) 05:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: orphan article

message: 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)
replies: text: , no debate required. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Style

message: :It's generally bad practice to wave a BLP flag because one disagrees with reliably sourced content. The New Statesman,The Right Hand of God, Sunny Hundal, New Statesman, 24 April 2010.  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  False BLP claims and sourced content removal 

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