Wikipedia:Peer review/Megan Phelps-Roper/archive1

Megan Phelps-Roper


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate this for GA and would like ideas on how to improve it.

Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello Z1720. I will begin reviewing this article tomorrow night - within 24 hours.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello! I only barely made my 24 hour deadline!  But I'm here.  I will do the lead last.
 * Beginning with the section Early life:


 * The first sentence: needs redoing. It has a loose and in the middle of it, doesn't contain all the pertinent info, and is awkwardly worded. Try something like this instead: "Phelps-Roper was born in Topeka, Kansas, on January 31 1986, the firstborn of Shirley Phelps-Roper and Brent Roper's nine children."
 * Done. Added a comma after January 31 per MOS:DATE


 * Those two things don't seem to go together. Why does it matter that she has Scottish ancestry?  Are you implying all Scots are racist or homophobes or something? I suggest that you either give a brief explanation for including it here, remove it, or move it to a more relevant location in the article - perhaps a discussion of how racial pride has influenced their attitudes, if you can find a source. Otherwise, Her grandfather is Fred Phelps is sufficient by itself for this section.
 * Oy, that is not the interpretation readers should have! Sources don't mention that her Scottish ancestry/heritage has influenced her life or decisions, so I removed it.


 * Flip the order: She was raised in the Westboro Baptist Church and lived in a compound that included the church, houses for members, adjoining backyards, a trampoline, running track, playground and swimming pool, all surrounded by a tall fence.
 * Done


 * Please provide a source for this claim. It's no doubt true, but it's an important claim - as if she couldn't think for herself - so make sure there's a quality source to cite that actually says it.  If you can't find a source that says it, just delete it, because the next few sentences communicate the same idea anyway and they are sourced.
 * Deleted. I couldn't verify the information in the New Yorker article, and I agree that the next sentences convey this information anyways.


 * delete "reinforced their beliefs and" as ithis is n't about their beliefs it's about hers.
 * Done


 * This sentence is in the wrong place.  This section is about her early years, not about church doctrine, so I suggest moving it - perhaps to the Doubting... section, and explain it there - with some detail, perhaps an example.
 * Hm, I don't think it should go in the Doubting section. At this point in her life she was not doubting the teachings of the church. Instead, she was taught arguments she could use with protesters who disagreed with the church's message. Maybe something like, "Church elders encouraged Phelps-Roper to memorize Bible passages to give counter-arguments to people who disagreed with them."


 * This sentence should also be moved:  I would put it in the next section, Within the WBC. It would make a nice first sentence.
 * Comment has been moved.
 * Within the Westboro Baptist Church


 * How about, She complied, reasoning that removing her focus from such earthly matters would increase her spirituality. It's a more complete thought.
 * Done, but removed such.


 * That buries the lead. Flip the order. During this same period, Phelp's-Roper's mother, Shirley Phelps-Roper, was accused of not following church doctrine and was removed from her position as scheduler for the church's picketing demonstrations. Thereafter, Phelps-Roper was given that responsibility. I would like to see some comment on how she felt about that - did she do well at the job? Did it bother her at all?  I don't know, something more than just the bald statement.
 * Replaced with "During this period, Phelp's-Roper's mother was accused of not following church doctrine and Phelps-Roper replaced her as the scheduler for the church's picketing demonstrations." I wanted to combine the sentences in your suggestion. For your second point, I can't find commentary on her time as the scheduler. The WBC doesn't comment on internal matters, this seems to be a smaller fact in Phelps-Roper's life and the WBC doesn't have a positive opinion on Phelps-Roper at the moment. If I find something I'll add it in.
 * I'm sorry that's all I can do tonight, but if you are agreeable, we can continue after you have made these changes. This will prepare both you and the article for a GA review. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Thank you for starting this review! Sorry that I didn't respond earlier; I saw your notice that you were starting the review but forgot to add the new page to my watchlist. Whoops! I'm going to implement these comments over the weekend and I'll ping you when I am finished. Can you ping me in future responses so I know to check this review? I'm excited to improve this article with you and hopefully we will get it to GA status. Thanks again! Z1720 (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Good! I am glad to hear back from you.  I can ping you but if this page is in your watch list it should come up every time I post something.  Since I have heard from you, and I have time today, I am going to move ahead as if you  had already completed these changes.  I am not checking sources as I go through, just prose right now, but if I am not full up by the end, I will do that as well.  That's what sinks most people, though problems with prose will also. We will take care of all of that!  I want you to succeed.  Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * So, next section: Doubting Westboro Baptist Church doctrine


 * Moving (without the also) makes a nice opening to the next sentence.
 * Moved, see above


 * Which means also changing "Around the time of her baptism" to "By the time...".
 * Changed to "At her baptism"


 * Since I am not checking sources yet, I am worried by this statement: Did the source actually say evil or just sinful? Did the church actually teach that anyone outside the church was de facto evil?  If so, that's an important point!  Include it!
 * Quote from the source, she became less comfortable with the idea that all nonmembers were evil. I removed the second part.


 * This sentence is also a problem: I would change that to contradictions within church practices, because that's what the example is which has nothing to do with contradictions in scripture.
 * Changed to "contraditions within the church's beliefs" as I think that represents the information in the source more effectively.


 * I am however, interested in seeing more about those contradictions. Putting this sentence from above here and elaborating on what they claimed. It will explain some of why she not only lost faith in the church itself but in God and the Bible as well.
 * Examples are given in subsequent sentences.


 * The next paragraph begins "Phelps-Roper disagreed with the church's happiness..." just put She. Her name is being repeated - repeatedly.
 * Done


 * Divide this one into two sentences: Meanwhile, her mother created a blog post that praised God for the drought. Phelps-Roper believed was the incorrect response.
 * Done


 * Take the date out of that one (stop sentence after changed) and move that date, combining the next two sentences: "The church had long employed a consensus decision-making model, with women having influential roles, but in 2011, a council of nine male church elders met separately and decided amongst themselves to begin making church decisions by themselves." If you can find years or dates for how long the church had used consensus, that should be included.
 * Sources don't say when the consensus decision making began. I suspect it was something that formed organically in the early days of the church. WBC doesn't comment on internal decision making so they won't confirm dates, either.


 * This cannot be an accurate claim since there is no such scripture concerning such leadership style, or if it is an accurate statement of what she thought or was told the Bible said, it would be a good example of how their beliefs used the Bible's "authority" while also undermining it through lies. That's interesting.
 * Changed to "Phelps-Roper felt both events violated the church's interpretation of scripture"


 * The location of the statement "was barred from wearing clothing" makes it sound as if she had to walk around naked! Separate and flip the order: Female members were also encouraged to submit to their husbands and fathers. Phelps-Roper was barred completely from wearing colorful nail polish and any clothing her brother or father considered immodest.
 * Done


 * Restate this. All religious people are just people trying to interpret God's will, that doesn't make them hypocrites and liars.
 * Removed the second half of the sentence after consulting the source.
 * I will return! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comments addressed above! Thanks for the review Z1720 (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I have gone over the changes and these sections are better. It doesn't read as smooth and polished yet. The sentences about Bible verses seem awkward. I think I know what you're trying to communicate here, so keep them, but perhaps combine them in this manner: "Church elders encouraged children in the church to memorize Bible passages used to justify the group's protests ...etc." It communicates policy but doesn't single her out as if it was something unusual and unique to her.
 * Done, with "which were used to justify". They also memorised bible passages for other reasons and I don't want readers to think it was for one specific reason.

You added in which made me wonder how many romantic relationships children at Westboro normally have? Perhaps it would be better placed in the next section, second paragraph, after "...but no real friends" and before "When interviewed in 2013 ..."
 * Done. I combined the fact with the interview about romantic prospects. However, the romantic prospects section might be removed because it is a Medium article and not considered reliable on WP:RS/P. Thoughts?

The rest of that section reads well and is connected and focused. I would like to know what it was about Blind Pilot that reminded her of those conversations with CG. The lyrics of a particular song? This leaves me curious with no way to resolve it.
 * Added some info from the article

This section is done too I think. The second sentence doesn't need "She stated", just begin the sentence with "She reaches out..."
 * Life after leaving Westboro Baptist Church
 * Done

Doesn't she do them to reconnect with her family because they are her family and she loves them in spite of their failings? This sentence makes her sound cold and manipulative and slightly dishonest. Is that accurate?
 * I don't think this is supported by the source, so I have removed it.

Real life is interfering some, but I should be able to finish the rest in the next couple of days. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, real life is more important. There is no rush to finish this: I am not nominating this for GAN until late-February. Thanks for all of your comments! Z1720 (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Z1720 Okay, good, because I will be super busy for the next two weeks, but will find some time for WP I'm sure. I love the stuff about the Blind Pilot song - so good!
 * The Medium article is not a reliable source as it is like a blog - I have stuff on Medium! That's how bad it is...  But surely you can Google the phrase and find something similar somewhere.  It sounds exactly correct, so I'm guessing it's out there - somewhere!
 * Man, this is all looking so good now. Getting more polished every time I look at it. I'm impressed! I'll be back for more! Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Gah, I was hoping for an exception for Medium because that's where Phelps-Roper announced her departure from the church, and gave her first interview to that person, but I totally understand why it needs to be removed. I'll switch out the references in the coming days (and hopefully not cite to the NewYorker article. It's already cited so many times...) Thanks for helping me polish this; I put this up for PR a couple of months ago when I had far less understanding of WP guidelines. I think if I do a couple readthroughs, and implement your comments, I'll be able to get this to GAN status soon. I look forward to your comments on the rest of the article! Z1720 (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It will all work out I'm sure. I have now made a few minor changes myself if that's alright with you. Giving her grandfather's name, with no explanation why it mattered, made me wonder, so I went and looked it up and included that he was the one who started the church. I think that's the only content change I've made.

Next section!

Activism
Within Westboro Baptist Church


 * remove the comma from the first sentence it creates a sentence fragment
 * Replaced the comma with "and"
 * That doesn't fix the problem. It creates a new one. "...before she could read the signs she carried" is not a complete thought, it has no subject, it's not an independent clause, it's a dependent clause, therefore it needs no and nor comma.
 * Done


 * change pickets to "Early picketing..." in second sentence, (noun to verb)
 * Done


 * It jumps from 19 in the first paragraph back to 11 and 13 in the following paragraphs. These should be in chronological order
 * I divided this section into themes: First paragraph is picketing, second is media, third is social media. Should I rearrange this section to be chronological?
 * I didn't pick up on the 'themes', so they don't automatically jump out whereas the ages did.
 * I took out information of picketing soldier's funerals and arranged the info chronologically.


 * In the image of the Howard Stern show, which one is she?
 * I'm 99% sure I know which one she is, but the source of the image (the WBC) didn't identify the church members in the photo. Would it be original research for me to identify who she was in the photo?
 * Without a secondary source, yes. Best just leave it alone.

Post-Westboro activism How old was she when she left the WBC? Does the article say, specifically, anywhere? Perhaps readers should be reminded here
 * I will have to look at the sources and see.
 * In her Ted talk, I think she says she was 25 when she left.
 * Looking at the section again, I don't think we need to give her age here.


 * Add commas around and fix in first sentence: ...atone for, and fix, her mistakes...
 * Done


 * This section has "She is now committed ..." placing this firmly in the present tense. Therefore, the verb tenses of introductory statements in this section should be in that special present tense about the past that uses those 'helping' words we all know and love (UGH!): has traveled, has spoken, with the rest of that paragraph remaining plain past tense. "Phelps-Roper has appeared..." the rest can stay as they are.
 * I hate using that tense, but I'll add it. Anytime I mentioned an event that took place in the past (speaking at Jewlicious, Sarah Silverman show) I kept it at past tense. Thoughts?
 * When speaking about the past, the past tense is correct, but when speaking about the past as something that is ongoing in the present tense, there is no other option in English. The present perfect tense is designed specifically to address actions that occurred in the past, but have a result in the present. That's what you are talking about here - her present activism and present beliefs - and how the past formed and informed those. Using a simple past tense puts it all as done in the past as something that is no longer being done, it's past, and that isn't accurate according to what you are saying here. No way around it.
 * I think I fixed all instances, but a double-check would be nice.

I found it very interesting that she works with law enforcement, and I would like to see more detail. Perhaps something on the definition of extremism, and some statement of law enforcement's goals in working with her - what it is she has to offer - any more detail that would put it in context and lend it the weight it deserves would be good. I'm guessing it has something to do with this being an extremist form of Christianity and not just a run-of-the-mill crazy person cult. Christianity has a lunatic fringe that includes more than just the WBC and some of them are genuinely dangerous. A sentence or two would be adequate. She mentions it in this one: [] This one says she does anti-extremism workshops: [] but I really liked this one as it is from a law enforcement agency and details the points they got from her video []


 * I will take a look at those sources!
 * I don't want to use the Harvard source because it is an advertisement of an event, which I don't think is reliable. The Ohio link is the minutes to a meeting, and it mentions a person asking members to watch her TED Talk, so it doesn't add much information. I added info from the source already in the article.
 * I don't want to use the Harvard source because it is an advertisement of an event, which I don't think is reliable. The Ohio link is the minutes to a meeting, and it mentions a person asking members to watch her TED Talk, so it doesn't add much information. I added info from the source already in the article.

Personal beliefs
 * End first sentence after Christian. Begin next one with "She no longer believes in God at all, remarking on Twitter..." It doesn't use the term atheist. Is there a reason for that? Is that not what she calls herself? I'm just curious.
 * I don't think she's ever referred to herself as athiest. Since this is a BLP I am hesitant to put a religious label that cannot be specifically verified. I'll take a look at the sources though.
 * No, you're correct, if it isn't a label she uses, you mustn't. I just wondered personally.
 * I looked at the sources and I can't find where this was mentioned, so I deleted it.


 * I would like to see more explanation of this transition. Use her Ted talk.  She says things like "we started to see each other as human beings" and "once I realized we were not the ultimate arbiters of divine truth"
 * I'll take a look at her TED Talk
 * I'm surprised you haven't seen it. It's quite moving.
 * Oh, I've seen the talk, but it has been quite a few months. I include it originally because I was scared to use primary sources. My wiki-journey has evolved since then and I am more likely to use them now.


 * Who else would have written it? This describes everyone. There is no one that doesn't believe that people wrote it, it's just some believe they were inspired to do so, and there are differing views on what difference such inspiration made in the product - if it occurred - that's the difference. So this sentence needs changing.
 * I'll look at the source and propose new text later.
 * I changed the wording to describe it as "Phelps-Roper believes the Bible is not written by people under God's inspiration. Instead, she thinks it is a document of people trying to understand how to be good and that other philosophies were developed with the same goals."


 * The paragraph on cults really needs a discussion of the sociology of what a cult is and isn't. Her usage of the term should remain, but it needs an actual definition to compare it to.
 * The best definitions I could find say that a cult is a relatively small group, led by a charismatic and often self-appointed leader, that excessively controls its members, requiring unwavering devotion from them which they are required to demonstrate through their participation in acts and practices which are considered deviant outside the norms of society. You can see that the WBC fits that perfectly. Don't state that conclusion, that would be OR, but a real definition of a cult should be included.
 * As a source for that, I found this on Jstor: Richardson, James T. “Definitions of Cult: From Sociological-Technical to Popular-Negative.” Review of Religious Research, vol. 34, no. 4, 1993, pp. 348–356. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3511972. Accessed 11 Jan. 2021. And this one on iresearchnet: [] There's lots out there.
 * I think defining a cult in this article would be off-topic unless it is speaking about Phelps-Roper's experience directly. This is why I focused on her definition of a cult and why she doesn't think WBC fits her defined cult paradigm. I'm going to take a look at the WBC article and online to see if we can find a source that keeps this section on topic.
 * P-R's experience and opinion of whether or not the WBC is a cult is the entire topic of that paragraph. We are agreed. An actual definition would provide objective context. Whether or not WBC is a cult is the actual topic of that paragraph whether that's what you intended or not. I like that you included her opinion, but without some objective standard, I think most readers will wonder about those definitions of hers and how accurate they are. That's my opinion, but you must do as you think best.
 * I changed the wording of the cult section to try to clarify that she is using her belief of what a cult is to decide if she uses the label. I don't know how successful I was, but I will keep working at it.

After watching her Tedtalk, I think there are some details that you could -- should -- use in this article. (cite media) I found it significant, for example, that she says that in her home, life was framed as an epic battle between good and evil. That's an important detail that should probably be added to the early years section. She also says she has ten siblings which makes 11 children not nine. Better check that. If I were you, I would go back to the doubting section and add in the stuff from the Tedtalk where she mentions the inconsistencies between church and Bible doctrine such as love your neighbor. Those insights are explanatory. And I love that she says she left in spite of overwhelming grief and terror. That puts it in perspective doesn't it? The courage and moral conviction required to take that step. Tell about how she got forgiveness from strangers and the benefit of the doubt from those who had cause to doubt her sincerity. If you juxtapose it with the part on the rejection she has gotten from her family, it will be truly powerful. Including her realizations about celebrating tolerance and diversity seems timely. "We've broken the world into us and them..." this section details the things she has learned and taken forward with her and that probably deserves a summary mention under personal beliefs.
 * I think I avoided the TED Talk before because I thought it was too much in the "primary source" territory. I am going to take a second look to see what I can add. However, I am also aware of WP:UNDUE I want to maintain the disinterested tone mentioned in WP:WIKIVOICE. I am going to look through the sources and refine this article over the coming week, and hopefully have lots of great info to add.
 * So about the sibling situation: I can verify that she has an older half-brother, and that she is the eldest daughter. I am pretty sure that I read somewhere that her other older brother is only half-related to her, but I can't find the reference. I've reworded it to be "eldest daughter" because that is what is could verify. I figure it is too much off-topic information to explain the half-sibling thing. Z1720 (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a really interesting article. Finish these changes, and I will look back over it again, as you should as well, to be sure all the prose is grammatically correct, reads well and that the content is complete. Next onto the hard stuff, a source review! I will come back later and begin that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I will ping you when I am finished with adding new prose and checking the sources myself. Thanks for your help so far! Z1720 (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * As you wish. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have done a copyedit of the article, double-checked the sources and looked for additional information about Megan (but only found minor things.) I removed info about WBC's church status and founding as I thought it was offtopic. I figured that someone can click on the Wikilink if they wanna know more about the church's founding. I addressed some additional points above. I think it's ready for another readthrough! Z1720 (talk) 02:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay. I've contributed all I can then and I wish you the best of luck in the future. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all of your help . I think the article is a lot better because of your work. I am going to close this PR. Z1720 (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)