Talk:Shirley Phelps-Roper

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Dead link[edit]

The reference for "Dear Shirley" is a dead link. It is reference number 7 and links to this page:

No longer a part of Westboro Baptist Church[edit]

People still ask her about her opinion on certain things. She's not that idle. I just read an article today where someone emailed her about a billboard that was posted in her area, but obviously cannot share it. Go on google and type in, "Who's the spokesperson for Westboro Baptist Church?" I never hear Drain Phelps speak out as much as Shirley has. She was quite comical the way she spoke about things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron Saltzer (talkcontribs)

Sarpy County had to pay her $17,000 for the arrest[edit]

Sarpy County was forced to pay Shirley Phelps-Roper $17,000 in an out-of-court settlement in order for her to not sue them for arresting her during the protest. This should be included in the 'Legal issues' section. (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure The Pitch is a reliable source, and the page they link to at the First Amendment Center is a dead link. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Not done for now: Per NatGertler (talk · contribs) above, and there has been no response from the requesting user in 11 days. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shirley Phelps-Roper. 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:

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

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 23:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2018[edit]

The last sentence of the "Personal life" section reads

"According to Kansas City's The Pitch, Phelps-Roper does not deny that (one son), who was later adopted by Brent Roper, was born out of wedlock but declines to identify the father."

I'm not sure why the article used as a source isn't linked but here it is. The relevant text in it reads

"Phelps-Roper doesn't deny that her son Sam was born out of wedlock."

Keeping Sam Phelps-Roper's name out is censorship. This censorship was added with this edit that came with a careful, tricky explanation that cited WP:BLP without explaining exactly what part of that policy requires we keep out non-notable people's names lest we fail to accomplish its one goal, which is to keep Wikipedia from getting sued for libel. (It's extremely likely this editor is not a lawyer because anyone who's ever set foot inside a law school would choke to death laughing at the idea of any Westboro person successfully suing anyone for defamation.) They kindly linked BLP but that very, very long policy page contains nothing that says non-notability, which isn't even an honest description of Sam Phelps-Roper because he's been a Westboro affiliate with high media visibility for decades, is a reason to not mention a living person. To the contrary, WP:BLPNAME says

"...names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced."

This whole approach is predicated on the user's ignoring the word "if" and everything past it. That clause plainly states that, if there is proper sourcing for "names of family members," non-notability isn't enough for removal. 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:480B:1D12:4102:2962 (talk) 03:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, what you claim it plainly states is not something it actually states; the statement "X must be done if condition Y is met" is not the same as "X must not be done unless condition Y is met."
Beyond that, there's the question of the statement itself. Is someone not denying something worth noting? A source asserting that something has not been denied is not the same as asserting it is true. The Pitch piece does have a statement that a child was born out of wedlock, but that sentence does not mention the child's name.
Finally, there's the question of whether it is properly sourced. The Pitch (newspaper) is a record store newsletter turned alt weekly. Going to its website to learn more about it, I find that its About page is a 404, and they look to be far more culturally-oriented than hard news. A quick search over at WP:RSN didn't find any cases establishing (nor denying) it as a "reliable source". As this is being used to indicate things about both mother and son that some would deem distasteful, we should tread lightly. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
And, given that earlier in the paragraph we already have a (better-sourced) statement about the child's parentage, including the name, there seemed little point in having a line that in one interview she did not deny it nor name the father. I've excised the sentence entirely. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)