Talk:Westboro Baptist Church

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2021

While I hate these guys as much as anyone, this article is very biased. It is almost a polemical article rather than a descriptive article. 184.98.244.77 (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 02:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

For one, in my opinion the first line should be about how it's an unaffiliated Baptist church in Topeka, Kansas. Then the second line can say it is listed by the SPLC as a hate group, etc. etc. But right now the whole page just states a bunch of adjectives as facts, which is the exact opposite of NPOV and not what the wikipedia is here for.--Mrcolj (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Made some edits and put a comment below about my concerns ProfGray (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

No secondary source

"In 2015, Sam Harris published an interview with her." Source: Sam Harris interview. Please remove this sentence unless there's a third party source establishing that anybody else actually cares - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

@82.20.240.157: I was unable to find any reliable sources reporting on this interview and as such boldly removed its mention from the article. It's probably worth it to give some other sources used a proper look as well. Funny Corn (talk) 07:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2022

In reference to the “Mormons” please change the phrasing to the proper name for the church: “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” 66.111.124.59 (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The church now styles itself as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Its adherents are still commonly referred to in most reliable sources as "Mormons". The context used in this article is a reference to the people, not to the church, and will use the common name for those people, not the "official" name of the church. General Ization ^Talk 00:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no such distinction between the church and its adherents in usage. The Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Latter_Day_Saints frowns on, but allows, the term "Mormons." Most modern style guides do not. There are arguments you could make, but "I'll use the common name for those people" is precisely why the Wikipedia has policies against it. Just sayin...--Mrcolj (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The WBC use the terms "Mormons" and "Mormonism", and while the LDS church is by far the biggest group to fall under that banner (and one that WBC at times has directly targeted), they are not the only ones. I think it would be wrong to assume that when they are using the term, they refer only to that church and not to the fundamentalist Mormons as well. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

NPOV and related concerns. COI (SME) disclosed.

This was once a featured article candidate and it would benefit from addressing several problems.

1. Neutral POV concerns with the opening: Of course, WBC is known for its antagonistic picketing and it has been designated as a hate group. But it needs to be primarily described as a Christian church and not give excessive weight to negative characterizations by outsiders. The opening should also refer to its history, structure, and legal actions against the church, which are covered in the article.
2. Reliable sources: The article should rely more on God Hates: Westboro Baptist Church, American Nationalism, and the Religious Right, by R Barrett Fox, which is the best academic book on WBC. There are other academic solid sources that are not used (e.g., Powell-Williams).
3. NPOV concerns elsewhere: The "Positions" of the church section should include its religious beliefs. (The book above has a chapter on their theology.) "Hyper-Calvinism" is a pejorative and vague term (I will also comment there). WBC is a Five point Calvinism, Primitive Baptist church.
4. There is content overlap in the Fred Phelps article that should be moved here. (I also left a comment there.) It is a Wikipedia:REDUNDANTFORK. It'd be great to help from an editor experienced with WP:Copywithin.
5. Images. The article would be enhanced by images of current leaders or members, the inside of the church, and activities besides picketing. The banner image is of a graffiti attack on the church, which might not be neutral. Better to have a section on attacks on the church, a subsection of history.
6. There's Wikipedia:UNDUE weight to some content, which I can mark or edit.. I could say more about other content to be added. Not sure how to handle the media & documentary coverage in a way that avoids cherry-picking and Wikipedia:SYNTH, best if there are reliable sources that themselves digest or analyze media coverage.

I am a Subject-matter expert on Westboro Baptists, so I am disclosing my academic COI External relationship with the church. I will avoid relying unduly on my own publications. Given disputes over this article, I wanted to open up this space for comments and responses to my edits. Per WP guidelines, I will be "bold" but also see consensus on NPOV and other matters. ProfGray (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

"Hyper-Calvinism." This is a derogatory term, as pointed out by Barrett-Fox (p.197 fn20). She sometimes puts it in "scare quotes" as a result. Her section on theology is built around TULIP, the tenets of Five point Calvinism, which is also how the church identifies itself (see Barrett-Fox at p.55-6. For these three reasons (avoid derogatory POV terms, scholarly analysis, self-identified), I propose that we identify their theology as five point Calvinism. This would be reflected in the article and infobox. ProfGray (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

No, it's not vague the way Barrett-Fox uses it: she argues that Phelps is following John Gill. StAnselm (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I mean that the term itself is vague (e.g., unclear, imprecise) and thus unhelpful in the infobox. Yes, Barrett-Fox is tailoring it to the WBC case, but it's still a poor choice for us. It's derogatory, which isn't her concern as much as ours (WP:NPOV), and it doesn't fit the group's self-description. I'd be happy to also put in Double Predestination (or Absolute Predestination, which was the title of a Zanchius piece that Fred Sr loved and had on their website), and it's also what Rebecca picks up on. It's a clear theological term and it's not pejorative. Let me try that let's see if it will serve our readers well. ProfGray (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

btw, double predestination is explained at the point linked. Absolute P is not (?) ProfGray (talk) 04:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. They are, of course, a world away from anyone else who has ever received the hyper-calvinist label. Anyway, I think Double Predestination in Calvinism would be a more appropriate link. StAnselm (talk) 04:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

haha, you mean a world away in time or in Christian outlook? ProfGray (talk) 05:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The latter. StAnselm (talk) 05:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Right wing? Are you fucking kidding me? Phelps was a liberal Democrat, he was even a civil rights lawyer. WBC is NOT right wing UnFunnyClown (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I agree that WBC is not readily seen as "right wing." Did I say otherwise? Or does the article?

I am removing the "Right-wing antisemitism" category because I think it's incorrect and it is not corroborated by the article.

However, Islamophobia is corroborated and discussed in the article, so I am reinstating that category. cc: User:Bbx118 please discuss here ProfGray (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2024

add a symbol to the members section 2804:6A00:F017:2200:196:DB1D:D48D:8AA7 (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

 Question: why? M.Bitton (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

the estimative is from 2016, eight years ago, there's also many people who have left this crazy cult over the years, so even if those people are only 1-2 digits in numbers or left before 2016, that's still a sizable portion of it's membership considering they only have ~70 members(most are related to Fred Phelps) so if the Nation of Islam(NOI) can have this symbol in their memebers section on their article(considering their estimative from 2007 gives them ~50.000 members) i see no reason for why this symbol can't be on this article as well, also many of their members are very old, some might have even died since 2016. 2804:6A00:F017:2200:688E:7E25:4764:F8D8 (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure the symbol should be at the Nation of Islam page. I see no reason to place it here; for one thing, it doesn't convey any information clearly. For another, if it is intended to convey that the total is lower now, we would need a proper source for that... at which point we would likely have a new estimate. The fact that some people have left the group does not mean that they have not had others join. Everyone who was on the Philadelphia Flyers when I followed them in the 1970s is gone, but the team is just as big as it ever was. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

then, i don't know, remove the symbol from the NOI page? 2804:6A00:F017:2200:688E:7E25:4764:F8D8 (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't feel like spending the time there to see if there is some odd reason why it has that. You are welcome to, I suppose. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

LGBTQ template in this article

User:NatGertler, No one should be hateful or disrespectful of any person because of his inclination (i.e. sexual orientation), but should try and best be helpful and understanding, and, if at all possible, to instruct him or her on how he or she ought to cope with such issues and, if possible, to do what they can to better themselves. In America's multipluristic society, there are people who are attracted to persons of the same sex, while there are others who are not. Now, for an editor to take a WP page such as this one (Westboro Baptist Church), where the congregants of the church aspire to strong anti-gay / anti-lesbian sentiment, and often voice their opinion to the chagrin of the LGBTQ community – despite the fact that the church is also involved with other matters affecting human society, and to post on their WP page a LGBTQ template, as if that were the only matter that the church was concerned with, is tantamount (in my view) to posting on an Arab nationalist WP page (e.g. State of Palestine) a template of Israel and of the Jewish political state, simply because the other side strongly objects to Jewish hegemony over the same country, or posting a "pro-abortion template" to an article about "pro-life." Of course, writing about the dividing issues, in their respective articles, is praiseworthy and can still be done. However, to put up a template in defiance of their "official stand", in my view, contravenes WP:BATTLEGROUND. To do so is to take your personal bias and prejudice and to force it down the throat of others. The way to handle this is in articulating the stand of both groups, in spite of their differences and in spite of the disputes. Yet, you wrote in your edit summary after posting the LGBTQ template, "Hard to see how WP:BATTLEGROUND applies here; a noted organization whose website is what their website is seems relevant to the topic, and there have not been battles here over it.". Again, their website is one thing, but a Wikipedia article is another. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

This seems to be a misunderstanding of what templates are for. The template does not take a stand, the template is for pages relevant to a topic. It's not identifying them as LGBTQ+, however, their activism regarding LGBTQ matters makes them relevant to the topic. The topic is not a trivial aspect of them, as shown by the fact that their longtime primary webpage address and their best-known slogan focus on their stance. The LGBTQ template is not pro-LGBTQ nor against it.In the past, this article also had templates on Islamaphobia and antisemitism (and indeed possibly should still have them.) We do indeed have pages on pro-LGBTQ stands, and you know how someone finding this article might find them? By using the template.

There is a case to be made that the template should instead be Template:LGBTQ_rights_sidebar, but it's at least arguable that Westboro is less about opposition to LGBTQ rights and more about opposition to LGBTQ people. I don't see any sign of a personal battle on the part of the editor who added the template, and it had been here for months without visible objection. This seems to be a place to, at the very least, assume good faith. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

So, in your opinion, would Palestinian Arabs and their activism against Israeli control of historical Palestine (i.e. the Land of Israel) warrant having a template of Israel and the Jewish political state posted on Palestinian Arab WP pages, or as you worded it, "make them relevant to the topic"? After all, for the Palestinian Arabs, Israeli control over the country is no trivial matter. I think that you can appreciate that this will not carry-over well here, on Wikipedia. Likewise, the template (as used here) is blatantly inappropriate in an article that teaches abstinence from such practices. The side-bar that you mentioned is also inappropriate here. And besides, most templates and side-bars are used in articles that have some affinity (or inherent connection) with the subject defined by the template that is being posted. This page and this template have opposite aims. Even so, why hasn't the LGBTQ template been used in the United Church of Christ page, where its insertion there would have been far more appropriate since they have an Open and affirming policy? You see, even there, it is not the only issue that that church is concerned with, but is only a side-issue.Davidbena (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Palestinian Arabs are a group of people organized by location and ethnicity; that is not a uniform statement of belief. Organizations such as Hamas have targeted templates such as Template:Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

As for you trying to explain to me what you "think I will understand", I really don't care about the version of me that you want to make up. As it happens, I'm a fairly well experienced Wikipedia editor with my own understanding that does not live up to your imagination.

The idea that the group who is best known for their slogan "God hates fags" has no relationship to LGBTQ matters is a curious one. This is not a "side issue" for them. The idea that templates should only be used on the agreeing side of a matter does not match how templates are used on Wikipedia. See, for example, Protecting Women's Private Spaces Act, an anti-trans act... which despite that has at the bottom an LGBTQ rights template, because this anti-rights effort is relevant to that, even if it is on the other side. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I never said that the group has no relationship to LGBTQ matters, as they certainly do. What I am saying, however, is that this matter is adequately discussed in the body (text) of the article. There is no reason for a template that champions LGBTQ rights to be used in an article that describes a church whose members are vocal about many church related issues, including but not limited to what they see as "lechery" and "debauchery." Again, you think that the LGBTQ template is fitting for this article, although the church in question is against what the template stands for. By your reasoning, if a people or organization opposes another people or organization, the opposing people or organization shoud have their "emblem" (i.e. template) displayed on the other's WP page. I find this reasoning incongruous, and it is not in keeping with what templates and their use were designed for. As for the bottom template used in the article, Protecting Women's Private Spaces Act, the use there is perfectly legitimate, as it does not come across as confrontational. This one, however, does. Perhaps we can get a third opinion by an administrator who is uninvolved. User:Seraphimblade, would you care to interject here? Davidbena (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The template "champions LGBTQ rights"?

As for third opinions... mine is the third opinion. The editor who put it in was the first. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with the first person who posted the template. I was the one who deleted it, claiming that it infringed upon WP:BATTLEGROUND, but you came along and reinserted it. Meanwhile, that makes only the two of us.Davidbena (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Another question to you might be, "Since the Westboro Baptist Church alleges to hate Jews, does this justify inserting a "Jews and Judaism sidebar," such as which appears in the article Jews?" Of course not!Davidbena (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@Refael Ackermann: You are being accused of WP:BATTLEGROUND editing here, if you wish to weigh in on it.

Generally speaking, if one thinks a "third" opinion is needed, one uses WP:3O rather than canvassing an admin.

This article had a sidebar template on antisemitism for over three years, and an Islamophobia one for longer, and they were only removed by the person you're accusing of Battleground editing as they were placing the LGBTQ one. And as I've already said above regarding these templates, "and indeed possibly should still have them".

To the best of my knowledge, no one saw that template as championing antisemitism. Indeed, any template that actually championed something would be inappropriate for any Wikipedia article. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, I guess we both should not be canvassing here. And, yes, you're right. It is best to make use of WP:3O here.Davidbena (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The person that I pinged was the one who you accused of "personal bias and prejudice and ... forc[ing] it down the throat of others." That you did not bother to identify this person much less contact them when you were here talking about them was a problem.

I'm also going to suggest you reread WP:BATTLEGROUND not on its own, but in the context of the full page it's part of. You'll see that it's a subsection of the section marked "Community", which is not about article content; the section explicitly points you to the earlier portion of the page for that. WP:BATTLEGROUND is clearly primarily about discussions, with mention of the editing of policy. The user you've been accusing has not entered into discussions on this page, and doesn't seem to have been editing any policy (it's a relatively new account.) The closest they come to a discussion on this page is the edit summary to the edit in which they added that sidebar: "The overwhelmingly major focus of their ire are the LGBT, note the name of their website". That seems like a reasonable explanation of what they were trying to do, and not anything covered by BATTLEGROUND. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request:

Talk:Westboro Baptist Church#LGBTQ template in this article Davidbena (talk) 04:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

. Disagreement about relevance of LGBTQ sidebar in a WP page about a Church and whether or not it contravenes WP:BATTLEGROUND. Davidbena (talk) 04:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest that you take another look at WP:3O, as this is not how you request a third opinion. You seem to have used Template:3O, which is for the person providing the third opinion, not the requester. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)