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)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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 &middot;  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.

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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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 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.

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)
 * 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 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 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 SYNTH, best if there are reliable sources that themselves digest or analyze media coverage.


 * "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)