This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Religion: Interfaith / New religious movements 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 has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Baptist 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 has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Baptist work group. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Kansas 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 has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies 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 United States History This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of the United States 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.United States HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject United States HistoryTemplate:WikiProject United States HistoryUnited States History ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject United States History To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : United States History articles needing attention Infobox : United States History articles needing infoboxes Stubs : Stub-Class United States History articles, Category:United States history stubs Other : Place either of the following WikiProject banners on United States History-related articles and assess: {{WikiProject United States History|class=|importance=}} {{WikiProject United States|class=|importance=|UShistory=Yes|UShistory-importance=}}

	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.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 25, 2005 Articles for deletion Speedily kept August 25, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 21, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Template:Pbneutral

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

I also think that it is inaccurate to describe them as "Independent Baptist" because none of the groups listed under that description seems to include them. When you capitalize "Independent" in Independent Baptist, you signal that there is a particular group with that name. If they describe themselves as independent Baptist, stating that would be factual. Avocats (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was added http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/17/lady-gaga-takes-on-westboro-baptist Lady Gaga takes on Westboro Baptist. could be noteworthy enough for a mention, Off2riorob (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editsemiprotected}} On 22 July 2010 in San Diego California, members of the WBC protested Comic Con International, a convention for pop-culture enthusiasts. The cause for protest was to condemn attendees for idol worship. A large constituent of anti-protesters was also present outnumbering the WBC protesters. D3esi (talk) 02:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC) http://video.aol.com/aolvideo/Asylum/westboro-baptist-protests-comic-con/207674901001[reply]

 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.  Davtra  ^(talk) 05:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editsemiprotected}} In 2006, it picketed the funeral of Albert Snyder's son, Matthew Snyder, a marine, who was killed in Iraq, with banners saying "God hates fags" and "Thanks God for dead soldiers". His funeral was held in Maryland.[28] Westboro Baptist Church is currently in a legal fight with the father Albert Snyder over the picketing.

Please Change ", a marine," to "a, Marine,"

Tmartinson (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: While the Marine Corps ordinarily capitalizes the word "Marine" when referring to an individual or a group, Wikipedia does not; most other works use the same style guideline. The words "soldier", "sailor" and "airman" are similarly not capitalized. Military ranks are capitalized when used as titles, but "marine" is not a rank. Horologium (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editsemiprotected}} An interesting point missing from the article is that Phelps also played the evil preacher in the movie 'Poltergeist 2'.

Well, if it ain't him then, boy do they look alike! Twin brother, maybe? Separated at birth? :P

zarathustra (talk) 22:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: comedy request. Off2riorob (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editsemiprotected}} I do not think that calling this a "hate group" reflects a neutral viewpoint. The article can state that the group has been identified as a hate group by entities that undertake to identify hate groups. Which is not to say that I don't think their behavior hateful and insane. I just don't think that "x=hate group," footnoted or not, is a statement of fact. Avocats (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been arguing that for while no one seems to care I think that should be directly attributed in text to the group that labels it as suchWeaponbb7 (talk) 03:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the reference for that? It's reference #1. Nine different links are given to show that it's a hate group. Wikipedia articles are meant to reflect what the sources say, and if we have a plurality of sources that say WBC is a hate group, then the article says that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective labels are always subjective not fact, unfortunately are editing philosophies differ. Weaponbb7 (talk) 04:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: This has been brought up here in the past. The general consensus was to keep as "hate group". Summary of consensus: NPOV states that viewpoints should viewed equally. However, "hate group" is pretty much the only viewpoint for this case. --Stickee (talk) 05:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I always thought that Wikipedia was supposed to be a neutral source of information. YES, I DID see the footnote references. No matter how many references you put in the footnote, there is no support for calling WBC a "hate group" because there is no process for determining what is a "hate group." It is pure opinion. "Several organizations contend that WBC is a hate group" is a fact. Can't wait to see what these folks write about the First Amendment. And I still abhor WBC. I also read the archive, and that was really disturbing; most of the posters entirely miss the point. But then I doubt that logic is taught many places these days. Avocats (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I have edit warred over such statements in other articles but arguements over such things tend to end with WP:SPADE logic Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At Adam Lambert's Glam Nation concert in Springfield, Mo., he kissed his (male) bassist during a song and said "Suck on that, Westboro!" afterward. You can watch it here, about 20 seconds into the video. Should this or could this be added to the page? It seems significant to me, as he is a public figure commonly targeted by the group. Glambert4688 (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm not really, Concert banter is not the best for a encyclopedia Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This list might help us with all the edit request asking for us to mention their Targeting of "X" does anyone have any thoughts?Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think one could exhaust oneself listing all of their targets. I worry that doing so in such detail affords them far more attention than they warrant.

Avocats (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if we just say US army instead of each soldier they have protested i see it being manageable, But I tire of all the edit request to include X and Lady Gaga fans flocking to include her its only a matter of time until we have an army of meatpuppets flock here to do something about their protesting celebrity X. In fact that may have happened already I dont know it seems the middle ground approach.

Maybe I missed it, but shouldn't there be something about their plans to protest the victims of the 2006 West Nickel Mines Amish School massacre? ----DanTD (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]