Westboro Baptist Church is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Kansas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KansasWikipedia:WikiProject KansasTemplate:WikiProject KansasKansas
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'm struggling to catch up on the nature of the disagreement...
It is my editorial opinion that the WBC is first and foremost an anti-LGBT org, while racism, if any, is a far smaller part of their agenda.
Not sure this is needed now that three editors are involved, but I would leave the template out per WP:SIDEBAR because the articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent. There is a loose connection so a list, category, or neither, may accordingly be more appropriate. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
.jpg)
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)
Response to third opinion request: