Talk:Christian Voice (UK)

Why Gaelic?

If I can lift the tone of the discussion a little, without being offensive or confrontational, why have they got it in for an entire language, Scottish Gaelic? What is so offensive about Gaelic that it threatens their interpretation of Christianity, and does this hostility extend to Irish Gaelic and Welsh? 80.177.253.74 (talk) 11:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be part of a long rant about the costs he owes as the result of a legal action - he's taking a swipe at a large range of things as well as salaries of top presenters - I'm not sure if he's said anything else about Scottish Gaelic. Autarch (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like they're specifically opposed to Scottish Gaelic broadcasts from that release. Otherwise you'd also have to say they're opposed to the new BBC logo, BBC 3 and 4, and paying presenters large salaries. 98.223.229.165 (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Why hate NPOV? All NPOV means is that assertions need to be supported by evidence. If Christian Voice is a bunch of spiteful bigots - which I believe they are - there is no reason why it can't be demonstrated from an NPOV, ie with evidence. David L Rattigan 10:29 03 May 2006 GMT

---

i am afraid to say i cant find any evidence that they are against tolerance, peace and friendship between members of different faiths. in fact i dont think this is true, although there is evidence that they dont think highly of Islam and Hinduism. they did apparently express admiration at those Sikhs who protested that play in Birmingham. So i dont think they hate people of other religions or races. i dont even think that they hate gay people as such, but they certainly arent compassionate or understanding of the gay community.

---

I've removed the neutrality alert, as the issues I raised here (and which someone has subsequently deleted) have mostly be dealt with. FrFintonStack 15:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"For example, they object to the proposals to end the practice of male-preference primogeniture for the succession to the Crown of the United Kingdom [1], which they believe would reduce the tax burden on families to encourage fathers to provide and mothers to care for their own children."

This is something of a non-sequiter. Has something been removed between "Crown of the United Kingdon" and "which they believe"? FrFintonStack 15:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I can only agree with the unsigned assessment above (indeed, it ranks as generous praise compared to my opinion of CV) but why is this ghastly organisation deserving of such a massive article here? The Christian Institute, another selection of vile bigots, has a way smaller article and yet is more notable. I am all for exposing the activities of mad-eyed loons like CV, but does it really warrant this much server space? 81.151.37.228 17:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason people could feel this page isn't NPOV is because it's just a big list of points that the majority of people would consider in a negative light. It may be that this group holds to many positions that are considered by the majority as reprehensible, but I reckon they also hold to things that are morally neutral as well. The fact that this article potentially ignores these things and focusses solely on positions that would make people outraged gives the impression on non-NPOV. I completely disagree with the group based on the positions described in this article, but can't help thinking, 'grief, do these people stand for anything reasonable?' I reckon the answer is yes, and that hasn't been fairly portrayed. 203.56.22.126 (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Then add sourced coverage of any information about them that has been left out.Autarch (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but I don't think this will work, tho. Demonisation by selective quotation is a well-understood method of political and religious invective. It's widely used by hate groups. A Wikipedia article needs to recognise this tendency and avoid it. I agree that counter-balancing quotation is a good approach; but the problem is one of reliable sources. Most of the sources used for this article are from mainstream media which is very hostile indeed to CV on political grounds (and probably NOT reliable, therefore, except on simple factual stuff; but what else can we use?). It would be fairly hard to find well-disposed reliable sources, which means we have a problem. But unless Wikipedia is merely to reflect what the UK mainstream media choose to say, we have to find a way around this issue (which is wider than this article, of course). Otherwise all groups detested by those who control the media agenda of our day will be represented only by articles representing the views of those who hate them. That will not be very useful to the rest of us. Roger Pearse (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit

Mostly tidying, but some poorly sourced material commented out (original retained in source text). These arose mostly (oh the irony!) from a rather literalistic and partial reading of Christian Voice's statements. Yes, they are an embarrassment to Christianity, but let's not fall into the same black/white trap! Material related to UK Life League commented out, not least as it has been deleted from the UK Life League page where it would better belong 84.92.241.186 22:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Trim

I hope this will not prove too controversial: I have significantly trimmed this article. It's length was (IMHO) absurd compared to the CV's (lack of) importance, and, worse, it regurgitated many of the CV's comments. We're not here to put CV's views on display for them! :-)

The article remains, I feel, too long, but... 86.153.93.235 (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Christian theology and speaking to the group - POV?

The following phrase appears: the Moderator of the General Assembly of the United Reformed Church called Christian Voice "a disgrace" without speaking to anyone in the group first, as required by Christian theology. Could anyone point to which aspect of Christian theology involved or which denomination would be relevant? As a former Christian, I've never heard that claim been made before - it may be an interpretation of some aspect of Christian scripture, but it definitely seems POV. Autarch (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it; it's nonsense, and unreferenced. I've also removed the statement about thier positions ranging from far-left to far-right. I've never heard anything that would indicate that they are remotely left-wing (other than a single sentence that working men should be unionised), and while most of their policies could literally be described far right, that term has taken on close associations with racist/neo-fascist movements. While CV are clearly contemptable, I think racism is one of the few forms of bigotry they are not guilty of (qualified praise for Enoch Powell aside). I think it best to simply state their positions, and leave the readership to make up their own minds as to where on the political spectrum they lie.81.139.117.111 (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ex-gay movement category

There appears to me to be nothing in this article that justifies the inclusion of this group in the ex-gay movement category. It's perfectly possible to oppose homosexuality on Christian grounds without either supporting or being part of the ex-gay movement, so Christian Voice's opposition to homosexuality isn't enough reason by itself to include them in that category. Skoojal (talk) 04:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It's been removed now as it was deemed that the article was previously too detailed, but there are articles on the CV website that talk about medical treatment for homosexuality and encourage gay people to get in touch with "ex-gay" organisations. I can't provide a source right now as their website seems to be down.86.0.203.120 (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Demerger

I would propose demerging this and Stephen Green. It was done despite consensus being opposed to it. The merger is like merging Alan Sugar and Amstrad or Gordon Brown and the Labour Party. The two are seperate issues and warrent seperate pages. Unless anyone objects, I shall do it shortly.Mtaylor848 (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that, technically, the pages should not have been merged in the first place as no clear consensus was reached when the issue was discussed. However, to split now would be unconstructive. Firstly, the Stephen Green page failed to progress beyond a stub in the however-many years that have passed since its first creation, and appears unlikely ever to do so, in large part because reliable, third party sources that deal with Green in a manner unconnected to Christian Voice are very difficult to come across: that raises major notibility concerns regarding Green as a private individual. Secondly, and relatedly, none of the information on the Stephen Green page was not, or ought not be, replicated on the CV page, rendering the Green page redundant. Finally, your analogies with Alan Sugar/Amstrad and Gordon Brown/Labour Party are poor for two reasons: firstly, Sugar and Brown are notible outside of their involvement in their respective organisations (see, for instance, The Apprentice and Brown's published works) as testified by the ample availability of relevant reliable third party sources, and, secondly, because the respective organisations are not synonymous with the individuals and are separable from them in a meaningful sense. Rather, your position is like suggesting that Richard Starkey and Ringo Starr, or Robert Zimmerman and Bob Dylan, ought to be split into separate articles. Oppose split. FrFintonStack (talk) 02:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think that Green is personally notable. CV itself is notable (but only just), I think, mainly because of the media coverage. In consequence material about Green personally should not appear here unless clearly relevant to CV. (I know that some of the anti-CV arguments in the media are essentially character assassination of him personally, but that's politics for you; it doesn't mean it needs to appear in Wikipedia about CV, except perhaps as a "Green has been attacked personally by XYZ as XXX" and reference those doing it and some verbatim quotes in the footnote.) Oppose split Roger Pearse (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree too, Green's notability exist only in the notability (or otherwise) of CV. The Sugar and Brown examples can't reasonably be used as analogy. Oppose split XVI Chancer (talk) 11:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Oppose split Fitz05 (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Bankruptcy

Mark Thomson and Jonathan Thoday were awarded £90,000 costs against Stephen Green. In June 2008, CV announced that Green could not afford to pay the costs and faced bankruptcy.

This is over a year ago, did he declare bankruptcy? I can't find anything, the problem being that CV and green are too obscure now to be in the actual media, so the only sources we have are CVs self published work and SG's self pitying prattle. Mtaylor848 (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The Bailiffs visited a year ago: [1], but there is little else around beyond what you state above. CV seems quiet since January. Mish (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The Insolvency Register does not show any Stephen Green declared bankrupt since June 2008, apart from an unemployed one in Chesterfield which I don't believe is him. It does not look like he declared bankruptcy. MarkyMarkD (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

couldn't find anything to support filing of BK - removing the item Lionel (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Fundamentalist?

I see in the summary that the group is described as "fundamentalist". This seems misleading, at best. The term "fundamentalist" has two meanings in contemporary Britain: (a) extremist -- a term of religious abuse -- which is the most common usage; and -- (b) to refer to a US-based conservative Christian movement which started in the early 20th century, and does not exist in the UK. The group does not call itself fundamentalist; and is not associated with any of the US groups under (b). To use (a) involves POV, rather than the language of the encyclopedia. I'm going to remove it, therefore; but would be open to some neutral term. Roger Pearse (talk) 19:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I've now edited the article a little further. I'm nervous that it could use more referencing, but most of the referencing is fine. May I suggest that verbatim quotation should generally appear in the footnote? Some bits look a little like original research to me, also, but I have mostly left these alone. I've deleted various adjectives, mostly pejorative since the tone should be that of an *encyclopedia* article. Adjectives should be avoided unless unavoidable, because so many of them are loaded or synonyms for agreement or disagreement. I deleted a couple of items which were unreferenced.

"censorship" -- censorship is something that public bodies and powerful corporations do, not one-man pressure groups. To call people with no power "censors" is rather absurd (and IMHO in these days, when freedom of speech is truly under threat, it weakens the whole case against censorship today). So I have removed this material also. I couldn't see anything that told me that CV *is* any more in favour of censorship than the Guardian (with its policy of "no racist/etc comments") is.

I hope this helps. The article could do with editing by more people who couldn't care less either way, but want good articles. :) Roger Pearse (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the tag for LGBTProject -- can anyone see how this article can have any *specific* relevance, unless every Christian group would likewise be relevant? Roger Pearse (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

LBGTProject tag replaced: its relevance or otherwise is for editors at LGBTProject to determine, and was placed here by a member of that project in the belief that it would be of assistance to it. If you disagree, that is the place to discuss it, not here, although, as an aside, I'd point out that most Christian groups do not share CVs obsessive fixation on homosexuality. As for the censorship issue (which I have not restored), I'd point out that the Guardian has never, as far as I am aware, attempted to enlist the state to ban the work of others through the power of blasphemy law and private prosecutions. If private groups attempt to enlist the State's power to censor, that is indeed an attempt at censorship. FrFintonStack (talk) 04:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Domestic violence

These are serious charges and at the moment this item is essentially hearsay. WP:BLP requires that contentious claims have solid sourcing. Usually for this kind of content to be added to an article we should have extensive coverage in reliable sources, or a court verdict. We have neither in this case. I'm removing per WP:BLP concerns. Lionel (talk) 02:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Rubbish. It's quite within Wiki rules to say that his wife has claimed she was a victim of domestic violence, and the citation supports that perfectly. Santa Suit (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Not the case. Fully referenced to a source that clearly meets WP:RS. Does not report accusations as fact, merely reports that they have been made. That they have been made is both undeniable and notible. There is nothing in BLP about a requirement for court verdicts. WP:N, which constitutes grounds for inclusion, is based on significant coverage in WP:RS: in this case, a feature article in a mass circulation daily newspaper. No BLP issues whatsover.FrFintonStack (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I've done some work on the Controversy section, but decided not to include any reference to the above. There is nothing wrong in stating that reports of domestic violence exist, without commenting on their validity, but the article is not about Stephen Green; it's about Christian Voice, and I think the link between the reports and the organisation is probably just a little too tenuous. Santa Suit (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a "leadership" section, which deals with Stephen Green, where the claims currently reside: it was moved there from the controversy section by Lionel, an edit I agree with. We need to bear in mind that there was previously an article on Stephen Green which was merged into this one on the basis that Green was of questionable outside of his involvement in Christian Voice, and that there was nothing in the Green article that ought not feature here. Therefore, this article exists on the basis that CV and Green are effectively synonymous, and thus it also needs also to deal with any notable issues to do with Green as an individual.FrFintonStack (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:TOPIC the content here must be relevant to Christian Voice. It's irrelevant that the Green article was merged here. Lionel (talk) 03:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

But it is relevant to the topic. Green is the leader of Christian Voice; his leadership of the organisation forms the context for the Daily Mail article, is explicitly mentioned in it several times, and is alluded to in the title. Moreover, the pages were merged on the basis of a consensus of editors that Green and CV are effectively synonymous: what pertains to one pertains to the other. If the Mail article is off-topic, logically so is any mention of Green and his background, and that would deprive the article of essential context.FrFintonStack (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I've had to remove Lionel's addition of Green's retaliatory allegations against his wife. These were referenced to Christian Voice's blog, and contrary to Lionel's assertion in the edit summary, Christian Voice's blog does not constitute a WP:RS: to include anything from it in this context would be a breach of WP:BLP. WP:V#Self-published_sources states that Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer and WP:BLP#Reliable sources that Self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person. This is in many ways a shame: the article could do with Green's take beyond flat reporting of his denial. However, that must be from a source that meets WP:V and WP:RS.FrFintonStack (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

From WP:BLPSPS: "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites." – Lionel ^(talk) 06:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

From WP:BLPSPS: "Such material may be used as a source only if: ... it does not involve claims about third parties; ... there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity". AV3000 (talk) 13:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

What does this part of the policy you've cited have to do with the sentence you removed? – Lionel ^(talk) 14:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. But the information that was removed wasn't about the publisher of the material. It was about a third party: Green's former wife. It's fine to use material published by Green or Christian Voice to provide information about Green or Christian Voice (although an RS is always preferable). BLP and numerous other policies make absolutely clear that it is not acceptable to use information self-published by them to make claims about third parties i.e. Green's wife. This is long-established BLP policy, and is non-negotiable. If you wish to disagree with the policy, the BLP page is the place to do it, not here. FrFintonStack (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Christian Voice (UK)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Christian Voice (UK)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ASArulesonAd":

• From Atheist Bus Campaign: "Atheist bus ad campaign is not in breach of the Advertising Code". ASA. 2009-01-21. Retrieved 2009-01-21.
• From Advertising Standards Authority (United Kingdom): "Atheist bus ad campaign is not in breach of the Advertising Code". ASA. 2009-01-21. Retrieved 2009-01-21.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Christian Voice (UK). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110516141316/http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/coop.html to http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/coop.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 14 external links on Christian Voice (UK). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070811111207/http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/Press/press008.html to http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/Press/press008.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110719220805/http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/Press/press111.html to http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/Press/press111.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070125161352/http://www.christianvoice.org.uk:80/Articles/Adultery.html to http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/Articles/Adultery.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080516055308/http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/islam.html to http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/islam.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080516054931/http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/police.html to http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/police.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121022123947/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article518144.ece to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article518144.ece
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080828082108/http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/Press/press090.html to http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/Press/press090.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110910103939/http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2503033.0.Christian_activists_target_Springer_in_St_Andrews.php to http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2503033.0.Christian_activists_target_Springer_in_St_Andrews.php
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080516202445/http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/Press/press024.html to http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/Press/press024.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080706125908/http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/Press/press028.html to http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/Press/press028.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081105105702/http://www.justice.gov.uk:80/publications/criminal-justice-act-implementation.htm to http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/criminal-justice-act-implementation.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110717020306/http://www.northumberlandgazette.co.uk/latest-north-east-news/Christians-warn-of-backlash-ovr.4680606.jp to http://www.northumberlandgazette.co.uk/latest-north-east-news/Christians-warn-of-backlash-ovr.4680606.jp
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110820042055/http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/Press/press113.html to http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/Press/press113.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090318013752/http://asa.org.uk:80/asa/news/news/2009/Atheist+bus+ad+campaign+not+in+breach+of+advertising+code.htm to http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/news/news/2009/Atheist+bus+ad+campaign+not+in+breach+of+advertising+code.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Christian Voice (UK). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110719220908/http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/about.html to http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/about.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christian Voice (UK). 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/20110717020306/http://www.northumberlandgazette.co.uk/latest-north-east-news/Christians-warn-of-backlash-ovr.4680606.jp to http://www.northumberlandgazette.co.uk/latest-north-east-news/Christians-warn-of-backlash-ovr.4680606.jp

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 20:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christian Voice (UK). 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/20110726121257/http://thirdsector.co.uk/news/Article/877545/ASA-bans-misleading-Christian-Voice-advertisement/ to http://thirdsector.co.uk/news/Article/877545/ASA-bans-misleading-Christian-Voice-advertisement/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/Press/press113.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 05:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Christian Voice (UK). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/about4.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/about6.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071221172303/http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article1771850.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article1771850.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 13:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)