Talk:Shirley Phelps-Roper/Archive 1

Archive 1

Spam

A user continuously adds a promotional link to a nn show link under Wikipedia:Notability that is considered spam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cuberds (talk • contribs) .

Unlike you on Chris DiBona? It is notable as it an interview with her about her opinions and not just a bunch of fans gushing over a "celebrity". - Mike Beckham 00:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears that Cuberds was told that a link added to Chris DiBona was unwelcome, and is now attempting to make a point by deleting existing links from other articles. Refer to the user's contribs and talk page. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 00:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Bold Re-write

I removed a number of paragraphs that didn't necessarily pertain to Shirly Phelps-Roper, so much as they were selective bits of info about Westboro's affairs. This sorely damages the POV of the article. If possible, try to keep Westboro-related affairs in the Westboro article, unless they specifically pertain to Shirly Phelps-Roper. 72.150.232.218 06:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Addicted to Hate

How is this an unreliable source? It was used as evidence in a court case, and it's used as a reference in the Fred Phelps article. RedRollerskate 23:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Not any more, it's not. And, all we know is that a website claims that this document is an unpublished book which was submitted in a court case. The judge apparently sealed the documents on this case, which means we have no way of even validating anything. An unpublished manuscript which may or may not have been submitted as evidence in a court case is not a remotely reliable source. --Xyzzyplugh 23:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Should the current address of Shirley Phelps-Roper be added to this page?

The Phelps-Roper residence is information that is publicly displayed by the Topeka, Kansas Sheriff’s department, but should it be displayed on Wikipedia?

Comments? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kento Makalohee (talk • contribs) 04:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

No. Obviously. There is already an external link to her official website. People can contact her there. wikipedia isn't a directory. --Danny Rathjens 08:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

BLP

The names of her children should probably be removed from the infobox. It doesnt matter if the information is available elsewhere, or even if she does not care about protecting their privacy. Its not encyclopedic--and I do not see the specific source, either. DGG (talk) 09:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It is unsourced, so I pulled it. I have no problem re-adding if someone can show me where that list came from, but none of the references cited showed the actual names. I remember her mentioning some of her children's names when she had them on the stern show, but without a print source, I can't prove them. Optigan13 06:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Updated photo

I would like to replace the main photograph with a higher resolution picture, but the content is locked. If anyone has authority to update this page, consider using Image:Westboro_shirley_phelps.jpg instead. Infolepsy 20:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually like the current picture over the one you've posted. The current picture shows her with the signs she is known to carry to her demonstrations and her god hates fags t-shirt. Yours has a much clearer view of her face, but the signs are cut off, and her shirt is less clear. I think that signs and shirt helps readers more clearly identify the woman Just because the resolution is higher doesn't mean the picture is more descriptive or representative of the individual. Were the article longer yours would be useful for decoration or additional identification, but right now I prefer the current image for the infobox. - Optigan13 23:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The bottom link to the YouTube video of her on Fox News goes to one that you have to log in to see. I suggest we change it to this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpNxwvKOpJk&NR=1 . Either way, it should still be labeled, not just showing the url. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.225.251.209 (talk) 05:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

mismatched subject/object in first paragraph

"controversial campaigns such as the picketing the funerals of AIDS victims with signs such as "God hates fags" and funeral processions for American soldiers killed in combat."

The funeral processions themselves aren't one of WBC's controversial campaigns; neither are they signs held up by protesters. One could make a weak case that the intent is for the 'and' to be a conjunction of (funerals of AIDS victims) and (funerals of soldiers), but the insertion of the phrase about the gay-funeral-specific signage in between the two makes it into an unreadable mess.

Suggested fix:

"controversial campaigns such as the picketing the funerals of AIDS victims and American soldiers killed in combat with signs such as "God hates fags" and "Thank God for dead soldiers.""

--Jrssystemsnet (talk) 05:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Children

She has eleven children, none of which are named Megan, but brought one of her children, Megan, to the Tyra Banks show? 82.27.238.241 (talk) 09:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

A quote that say's loads

“They’ll have to strip search everyone who crosses that border or they won’t know who we are. They’ll have to see the WBC (Westboro Baptist Church) tattoo on our butts.” http://www.chrisd.ca/blog/1261/hated-us-church-group-stopped-at-border/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.237.23 (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm positive she was being facetious. on one level, there'd be no way to prove or disprove whether one is a WBC member; however, taken literally, it suggests they are a cult and branded like cattle. Cijidunne (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Child update

I can no longer edit the article (I don't have an account), but I was the one who changed the child's name from Margy to Megan earlier. I was half right, half wrong. The child's full name is Margy "Megan" Phelps-Roper, and yes, Margy is spelled with a "y." (source: Topeka Capital-Journal -- http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4179/is_20020512/ai_n11782417/ )

The name on the sidebar should probably be changed to its full version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.50.112 (talk) 04:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ron & Fez

While Shirley makes appearances on many radio programs, it's an oversight to exclude Ron & Fez after Stern. I believe she has made more appearances on their show compared to Carolla, and Carolla is mentioned in the article. 24.47.159.180

She also appears on a over the phone comedy interview with friday night cranks on youtube. (link below) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfDoqqWdR7A —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.10.152.208 (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Perhaps this page should be locked to prevent all the vandalism. First of all, it says she was born on October 31, which I seriously doubt. Second, the article says "No one likes her and she is a fake Christian. She is the Ant-Christ." I'll fix it for now, but I really don't think it'll stay vandalism-free for long. Hammer Bros. (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I have this article watchlisted and the vandalism is mostly recent- however, if it persists, I will semi-protect the article. Rodhullandemu 15:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Not Oldest Daughter

The introductory paragraph of the article says that Shirley is the oldest daughter of Fred Phelps. This is certainly NOT true. All reliable sources affirm that both Katherine and Margie Phelps are older than Shirley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.167.3 (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Arrest/suit

The arrest charges as well as Roper's countersuit have all been dropped, making the entire affair little more than a titillating detail that doesn't deserve treatment in an encyclopedia article. — e. ripley\^talk 16:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Noteworthy?

The article does not contain any encylopedically noteworthy content that stands on its own. It should be merged into the Westboro Baptist Church article. It is not important when this person was born or where she went to college. She has done nothing of interest outside of the WBC. The bulk of the article simply repeats WBC-related content that is already in the WBC article.74.196.205.92 (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This matter is being addressed in an Articles for Deletion debate. It seems fairly clear that this individual passes "notability" muster as the de facto leading spokesman for W.B.C.. Carrite (talk) 01:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Importance assessment

I assessed the importance of each articles based on... well... my opinion. I think there are varying degrees of "importance" of this article for the several projects invovled. Anyone want to change or modify, okay by me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Rubinsteindds, 5 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The first paragraph refers to Fred Phelps as a "political activist". This is an inaccurate description, as none of his actions are geared toward political change. His own wiki does not describe him as a political activist, and neither should this one.

Rubinsteindds (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Done I changed it to pastor as that is how his article describes him. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Illegitimate son section

I've removed this section, not because there is no source for it or because it's untrue, but because I fail to see why this is important. It seems like just an attempt to put some negative content into this article, due to the fact that people don't like Shirley Phelps Roper. She had a son when she wasn't married, so what? There are probably Wikipedia articles on thousands of people who have "illegitimate" children, and we don't have separate sections in all these articles on this. This is a problem with all the articles on the westboro baptist church, everyone dislikes these people so much that it takes constant effort to keep the attack content out of these articles. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It is relevant because she vehemently campaigns against this sort of thing! Technohead1980 (talk) 11:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The child in question is now 30 years old or something like that, which means that she had this child out of wedlock long, long ago. The fact that she did something 30 years ago which she now preaches against is not any sort of a contradiction. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Part of the message they preach is that sinners cannot repent. It is very much valid that this woman is (in their words, not mine) a whore. It should be part of the record. It goes to the very core of their message. 64.89.180.240 (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, she preaches that you can repent for your sins. It isn't simply about saying sorry to God, but it is possible. People confront her about that all the time, and she said she has repented and that, obviously, she is not and has not committed the sin in over 30 years, so it is not on the same level as the perversion she preaches against. I mean, I dislike her just as much as the next person, but bringing up the illegitimate child thing is just a poor rebuttal. "Well you have an illegitimate son so everything you say is invalid!" It was one time 30 years ago, and she repented for it. 00:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.3.151.28 (talk)

I think it should remain because people want to know that about her. How to interpret it (mistake in the past/arrogancy and stupidity in the present) is your and the readers job. But I have to agree that possibly the only reason it got there because it's lovely to see someone so dedicated to... wtf has a "dark secret". If I'm not mistaken, it says that it needed to be uncovered. So she made a secret of it? In that case it's a contradiction towards her life and "teaching". --Kangaxx (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is probably relevant in that she considers any sort of sexual relationship out of wedlock to be filthy. She is what she preaches against. TommyP (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I too believe that it is important only because she protests against that sort of thing! If Fred Phelps turned out to be a homosexual, I am sure that this would have a big article!! - Remdabest —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree! It's Westboro Baptist that has brought the subject up--opened the door for it to be included. If they held no oppinion on premarital sex, it wouldn't be relevant, but they denounce others left and right over alleged sexual transgressions. Since she's brought the subject into the dialog, it becomes relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.234.100.88 (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that she has an illegitimate son is directly relevant to her and her beliefs - here, at 3:35 she condemns any sex as 'perverted sex act' if it not 'one woman, one man, in their marriage bed' - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmIr9P-vkSQ&feature=player_embedded. How is the fact that she has, and admits to having, an illegitimate child, whose name is Sam Phelps, and is now a 27 year old adult, and still in the Church, not relevant?

Husband - her husband, Brent D. Roper, is a legitimate author of books on law office management. This should be foot noted, with his name, http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&rh=i%3Astripbooks%2Cp_27%3ABrent%20D.%20Roper&field-author=Brent%20D.%20Roper&page=1.

If she truly was living according to the Word and showed her husband respect she wouldn't be hyphenating her name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.176.138 (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Theologically speaking it would be dificult to find fault with Shirly for her pregnancy outside marriage. The person on whome God vents all His spleen in these circumstances seem to be the helpless and inocent children who are subjected to Gods Hatred; (Deuteronomy 23). It also seems God plans out differing lives of misfortunes and misery for the helpless children depending on the circumstances of their illigitamacy; (i.e. products of adultery, prostitution, general fornication etc have differing levels of misery inflicted on them by God). Children of divorced and remarried couples would also be classed as illegitimate.Johnwrd (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Baptist?

Not sure sure that "Baptist" is the best religion to list on this article. It kind of misrepresents the Baptist belief system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.100.44.98 (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion -- and as such, it doesn't belong here on Wikipedia. There are no opinions in an encyclopedia, no original research -- only facts. Shirley Phelps-Roper self-identifies as a Baptist, as does her father/pastor, and that's the registration of the church to which she belongs. So whether anyone disagrees (or agrees) with their biblical exegesis is irrelevant. We're simply here to report the facts, not pass judgment on them. Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that was very idealistic and all, but what I said isn't an opinion. That the Westboro Baptist Church misrepresents Baptists is pretty much a verifiable fact, since you can say that X belief of WBC is not present in the set of all beliefs Baptist. The real truth is, this has published her errant opinion that she follows Baptist teachings. By the way, where exactly did agreeing with the exegesis become a topic? I think you brought that up, because what I said had nothing to do with opinions or disagreements.

Apparently you have a philosophy background? Remember what truth actually is. "That's your opinion -- and as such, it doesn't belong here on Wikipedia." Really? Last time I checked, facts were simply opinions that were "proven" right by evidence or argument. At one point, everyone KNEW that the sky had big old floodgates that made it rain. Now we all KNOW it doesn't. Funny, that. 63.100.44.98 (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm is inappropriate and unprofessional, and as such I will not respond to your provocations any further than to ask that you please assume good faith in your future dealings with me and others. The fact that you think your opinion is "right" (or shall certainly be "proven right" someday) is understandable -- we all think our own opinions are correct, hence they're our opinions -- but they have no place whatsoever here on Wikipedia. We must maintain an absolutely neutral, detached, non-judgmental point of view. Your original point was that you're "not sure sure that 'Baptist' is the best religion to list on this article", and that "it kind of misrepresents the Baptist belief system" -- and my response to that still stands: that's your opinion, your judgment passed on how well (or not) her professed beliefs match up to your idea of proper/true/actual Baptist beliefs (which, may I point out, are wide and varied and open to interpretation; I'm sure there are some folks out there who feel that her exegesis can be said to fall squarely within the set of "Baptist beliefs"...which, again, are varied). And while you're fully entitled to think that, it doesn't belong here on Wikipedia per several established policies and guidelines (WP:NPOV being the flagship one). A personal blog, a diary, a journal, a personal website, an editorial -- those places would be much more appropriate venues. Wikipedia is supposed to be like quality journalism -- we're here to simply report the facts (there is no original reserach/original thought allowed here whatsoever)...we're not here to make them, judge them, selectively include or exclude them to express a point of view or accomplish an agenda, pontificate upon them, or do anything other than simply report them. Shirley says she's a Baptist, she's a member of a Baptist church whose preacher was ordained by a Baptist minister and preaches the Five Points of Calvanism, etc...so it's not like this is some Internet hoax or supposition; there's no lack of concrete proof that this is all true, so it's therefore well-referenced and appropriate for here. Passing opinions such as "I'm a Baptist, and I disagree with her beliefs, and I've never met a Baptist who agrees with them, so therefore she must not be a Baptist", on the other hand, is not. Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 03:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

SO the fact that she considers herself a baptist means she actually is a baptist? She could easily claim she is God, but this article would not state such as a fact... would it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.208.159 (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If Fred Phelps isn't a Baptist, why hasn't the Baptist church formally excommunicated him?

Please read some of the articles on Baptists. They have no central authority which can excommunicate anyone. This is central to their identity. Wolfview (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The Phelps family and the Westboro Church self-identify as Baptist. Fred Phelps was ordained by the Southern Baptist Convention, although he now denounces the convention. They are Baptist, although personally I believe their teachings are not Christian at all. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a YouTube Video called 'Are the Westboro Baptist Church Christian'? The maker of the video compares the teachings of the WBC and other Baptists on such subjects as Homosexual-ism, Fornication, Adultery etc. While WBC certainly use different words, the doctrines are in fact identical. Seems reasonable to assume they are some kind of Christian Sect. Johnwrd (talk) 02:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Too neutral a POV?

I read this article after someone mentioned her name and after doing so I had no idea what she is about. I only figured it out after reading the transcript from her interview with Hannity. Which is linked, so kudos, but shouldn't the article itself allude to what she is infamous for? Saying she appeared on those various talks/news shows doesn't tell me anything, because those shows have all sorts of different types of people on them. --Danny Rathjens 22:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking this myself. The article doesn't convey how extreme her views are seen to be by a large number of people. Triangle e 10:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I also agree, I think we really need to convey how much of a racist nazi this woman is (DeanBaetz (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 01:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC).

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Lawyer Credentials

I would like to see some sort of reference to prove that she is a lawyer because I can't believe she has the mental capacity to be a law student let alone pass the bar. If someone could provide a link that shows she has passed in the bar in whatever state it would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.208.49 (talk) 12:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Poor parenting?

The opening states that her parenting skills have been criticized by the "general public, the media and celebrities such as Tyra Banks, Russell Brand and Jeremy Kyle". The only source provided to back such a grand claim is a video featuring Russell Brand. It should go without saying that one shouldn't be making such sweeping statements without proper documentation, and the source, singular, provided is woefully inadequate. Moreover, who the hell cares if Tyra Banks has criticized her "parenting skills"? It seems people are throwing mud and trying to see what sticks.74.138.44.226 (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Departure of daughters Megan and Grace

I think there should be a section on her family. She has the brother Nathan Phelps.

Should it be mentioned that her daughters Megan and Grace penned a letter about their departure from the WBC? https://medium.com/turning-points/83d2ef8ba4f5

Megan was often described as an "heir" to the church due to the close relationship between her and Shirley http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/19/3275645/megan-phelps-roper-an-heir-to.html

-- Aronzak (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2014

I suggest we change "Shirley L. Phelps-Roper was born October 31, 1957 in Topeka, Kansas." to "Shirley Lynn Phelps was born on October 31, 1957 in Topeka, Kansas." 71.59.58.63 (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2014

Please change the "fundamentalist baptist"-link in the info box to Primitive Baptist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_Baptists) rather then to westboro baptist church. The link should not point to the churchpage since the church itself is not a religion.

Zoeni (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - As it says in the Westboro Baptist Church article
"The WBC is not affiliated with any Baptist denomination. The Baptist World Alliance and the Southern Baptist Convention (the two largest Baptist denominations) have each denounced the WBC over the years".
Although only Wikipedia's list, the WBC does not appear on the List of Primitive Baptist churches either.

As the WBC seems to have its own particular beliefs, I wonder if "Unaffiliated Baptist" would be the best description?
If you are happy with that proposal, please confirm that here, and change the "answered=y" in the top line of this section to "answered=no" and someone will revisit this page Arjayay (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2014

Shirley Phelps-Roper's son Zacharias has also left Westboro Baptist Church and therefore her family. http://origin.tvwiki.tv/wiki/Members_of_Westboro_Baptist_Church Thus, four of her eleven children are no longer members of WBC and her family. Wikipedia editor IP address 74.76.100.190 74.76.121.32 (talk) 06:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2014

I suggest we change "Shirley L. Phelps-Roper was born October 31, 1957 in Topeka, Kansas." to "Shirley Lynn Phelps was born October 31, 1957 in Topeka, Kansas." because "Shirley Lynn Phelps" is her full birth name. --76.105.96.92 (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC) 76.105.96.92 (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done albeit slightly differently from your suggestion - but you are right to point out that she was not born Phelps-Roper Arjayay (talk) 08:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Shirley Phelps-Roper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061223140036/http://www.godhatesfags.com:80/featured/dearshirley/dearshirley.html to http://www.godhatesfags.com/featured/dearshirley/dearshirley.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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.

http://www.pitch.com/news/article/20581029/nebraska-town-forced-to-pay-shirley-phelpsroper-17000-for-arresting-her-during-protest 82.11.145.24 (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. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713144822/http://www.ketv.com/r/24725639/detail.html to http://www.ketv.com/r/24725639/detail.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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

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)

Another child has left

Noah has now left the church. Needs updating to 5 children left now.Pookiepops (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2021

Change ‘Four of them, Joshua, Megan, Grace, and Zacharias, have left the church’

to

‘Five of them, Joshua, Megan, Grace, Zacharias and Noah, have left the church’

This has been confirmed by Grace Phelps Roper and Lauren Drain on their Instagram stories, with photos of Grace’s brother / Shirley’s son, Noah, who is no longer a member of the church and currently resides with them in Las Vegas. 82.7.18.202 (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 01:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2021

Change number of children who have left the church from four to five. Bsharp12 (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Danski454 (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)