Talk:Westboro Baptist Church

POV?

I think some slogans from the article are somewhat POV. Dexcribing their biblical interepretation as "eisigesis" surely comes under this. There are other issues as well, but I can't remeber remember what they were. DanCrowter 20:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

                      You also can't spell remember properly

This article still has some major POV issues. For instance, the photo description stating ___ has been arrested for assault seems unhelpful to understanding that image. It may be ok for the text of the article though. Banjeboi 14:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Update, I trimmed off the photo caption and made some other fixes. More eyes looking to neutralize content is appreciated. Banjeboi 12:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm no fan of these people, but isn't it a bit unfair to have the top image in the article be of something other than the subject of the article? JorgeMacD (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not certain if the article merits so much attention. There is a criticism section in this article that might not be necessary according to current Wikipedia rules. That must be difficult though, since the existence of this organization is based in criticism. It's locked anyway, I suppose we will just let the masters of Wikipedia control it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.213.250.180 (talk) 07:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Masters of Wikipedia? This article is semi-protected because it was getting vandalised extensively by unregistered users. Anyone is welcome to propose changes on this talk page. Template:Editsemiprotected is designed for that purpose; those requests normally get pretty fast responses. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 01:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Inadequate Introduction

The lead really doesn't describe why WBC is at all noteworthy, or why there's a [huge] Wikipedia page on it. The sole reason they've reached the level of fame they have is their protesting and "Anti-Fag" stuff, which isn't mentioned at all in the lead. And the second paragraph, about the church's religious views (Primitive Baptist, Calvinist, etc.) really doesn't seem to me to be that important to the article. After all, the church's specific religious doctrine and philosophy isn't why everyone knows about them; it's because of their incendiary and bombastic protests and publicity. Not to compare them to a cult (I don't know if you could label them this), but the article on Peoples Temple (Jonestown), for example, doesn't describe their specific beliefs in the lead. It says, "It is best known for causing the deaths of 918 people..." That's why they're as well-known as they are, and that's why they're noteworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.14.204 (talk • contribs) 18:22, May 8, 2009

Size of this "church"?

Can anyone source some statistics re the size of this "church"? From what I can glean, they are made up mostly of one extended family, and not much more. (Small but noisy, and big media darlings). Can anyone provide more info for the article? 60.242.34.19 (talk) 10:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a piece from the BBC in 2007 when it was 71 people. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Counter protests and sourcing

I removed NotTires' edit on the grounds that the two sources provided - http://www.gayindynow.com/news/?id=news&item=136 and http://www.phelps-a-thon.com/Home.html - fail the criteria for reliable sources.

The first is a self-published blog by an seemingly unreliable organization. The text that shows up for the first - "assert (e.g. [100]) that " - is inappropriate and looks unencyclopedic. And where in that reference does it say that the targets "frequently assert... that counter protests provide publicity and encouragement to the church, and fosters continued protesting"? I'm not seeing it.

The second link is a primary source, and isn't even used as a reference - it's just given as a straight link, which to me is a solicitation for the site. This article isn't supposed to serve as a linkfarm or anything like that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I replaced the materials, rewording to make the entries more encyclopedic. I believe editors should help other folks improve their edits, not just rip out what we don't like and not provide any useful constructive criticism. Unless, of course, it appears to be clear-cut vandalism. The edit we're discussing doesn't seem to fall into the vandalism category. I agree with your criticism of the second reference, but you give no rationale for your criticism of the first. What does "seemingly unreliable organization" mean? By whose standard? Until consensus is reached, I'd ask that you leave it as is. Cheers! --averagejoe (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but per WP:BURDEN, "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". When you add text to an article, it needs to conform to Wikipedia standards. Now, as to your concerns. The first site, www.gayindynow.com, says that it's the voice of the "Indy Rainbow Chamber of Commerce". Who are they and why should anything on their site be used as a reference? Further, you didn't answer my question of where in the article it says that "targets of the church's protests assert that counter protests provide publicity and encouragement to the church, and serve to foster continued protesting." Moreover, your use of "Some targets" and "Some groups" is a sign of weasel words, which are unacceptable around here.

If you'd like we can take this to the reliable source noticeboard and see what the people there think of the text and the source. I'm not going to revert the text again, but hopefully some other editors who watch this page will chime in. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I've taken the issue to RSN anyway. The thread is here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The one response on RSN says that the source can't be used since it violates WP:SPS. If there are no further objections, I'm going to remove the text. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. Even after JRStutler/averagejoe's tweaks, the source did not support the claims made. The disputed text claimed some targets of the church's protests opposed counter-protests and that some groups used the protests as a fundraiser, but the source only described a single example. Some implies more than one, and the extrapolation from one to some was not justified. Anyway, the article states elsewhere that some groups oppose counter-protests; see this edit. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Anti-gay hate group?

The article opens with: "The Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) is an independent Baptist church and anti-gay hate group" Please can someone change this, upon first reading it is a bit confusing, it reads like a double-negative as if the WBC are a group who do not like gay hate. Not the other way round. Please change to "anti gay group" or "gay hate group". —Preceding unsigned comment added by E mpika (talk • contribs) 13:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. I've removed the ambiguity ([1]) though the whole lead still needs to be re-written and expanded. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "anti-gay, hate group" would also work, as "anti-gay" and "hate" are both qualifiers of the type of group. Additionally, is there a centralized organization that monitors and identifies groups that are based around or focus on the hatred of homosexuals? The ADL and Southern Poverty Law Center are likely not the only legitimized organizations that recognize this entity as a hate group. - Gwopy 05:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwopy (talk • contribs)

Supreme court will hear appeal in Snyder v. Phelps (Westboro Baptist Church case)

The United States Supreme Court today (Monday, March 8, 2010) granted certiorari in the appeal of Snyder v. Phelps, the lawsuit involving the Westboro Baptist Church.[2][3] This is a major development and warrants inclusion in the article; however, it's locked at present so only a Wikipedia member can do that. 173.49.135.190 (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Funding

Can someone PLEASE put where this church gets its funding? They spend a quarter a million a year protesting...where the hell do they get the money? I can't find that anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.153.76 (talk) 05:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

How can we possibly add it to the article if we have no verifiable information to add? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this would be possible if private citizens or privately held companies donated the money. - Gwopy 05:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)