Talk:Faithful Word Baptist Church/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Coatrack tag on article?

Could the editor who put the coatrack tag on the article please explain what content is being kept out of the article as suggested by reliable sources? Otherwise I think the tag misleads readers that we are omitting content against policy. It seems the only notable things about the church is the hate designation, the sermons in which the pastor made some outrageous comments and the the assault riffle at the rally incident. Anyone find something else that should be included? Otherwise the tag should be removed promptly. Insomesia (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You just said that the only WP:DUE prominent things about the church are (1) the SPLC hate designation, (2) the outspoken pastor, and (3) the erroneous association between two Ron Paul supporters who brought loaded guns to a publicity stunt and the church.  (1) = unambiguous coatrack, (2) = arguably a coatrack, (3) = bad writing.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You (Insomesia) have misinterpreted WP:COATRACK. I'm saying that everything you've added is against policy, as not being about the organization. If Unscintillating is correct as to what you think is WP:DUE, then:

1. is about the SPLC, not the church
2. is about the pastor, not the church
3. is about those particular Ron Paul supporters, not the church

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hate group designation is about the church. The church's founder and leader in a sermon stated the comments about President Obama, that makes it also about the church. Reliable sources attributed the gun incident as being tied to the church. Your issue is with them. So do you have concerns about missing material covered in reliable sources? Otherwise we have pretty much covered what reliable sources have stated about the church. As for WP:Due? Let's see what that says ...

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views.

So, what has been published about this church in reliable sources that is still missing? I don't think I missed anything and I purposely left out the information about the pastor that didn't seem to be about the church. Specifically the arrest and trial which he blogged and preached about. Should we get more eyes on this to see if we are misinterpreting something? Insomesia (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no doubt you've reversed WP:COATRACK; the tag is applied when inappropriate statements are in the article, not when appropriate statements are omitted.

Ignoring that, do have any arguments for the inclusion of anything about the organization? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you do have a point. Some reliable sources have reported the gun incident as being tied to the church. Those sources have be criticized for not doing adequate research. That one is a toss-up. The other two are clearly not relevant to the church. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If we have reliable sources talking about the church they probably should be used. Coatrack is summed up as

Articles about one thing shouldn't mostly focus on another thing.

Well we are only talking about what reliable sources state about the church, the subject of this article; (1) that the SPLC designates the church as a hate group; (2) that the the church's leader, in his sermons at the church preached why he hated President Obama earning him a visit from the United States Secret Service, and ; (3) that the the other most famous church-goer was stopped because he was carrying an assault rifle at a rally for Obama the day after the hate sermon was delivered at the church. Insomesia (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Like Mangoe noted at BLP/N, we don't know the first thing about this church's polity.  We don't know that the pastor is or is not a member of the church.  Nor do we know the legal nature of the church.  Are they incorporated?  Is the pastor paid?  Do they have elders, deacons, bishops, missions, outreach?  How do they explain that their doctrine says that the King James version of the Bible is infallible, but English did not exist at the time of the patriarchs and Jesus?  We know that they only have one weekend service, so we can assume that they are not a megachurch.  And a church that meets in a mall is probably neither well-to-do nor large.  What is the church's view about the pastor?  Is he well-liked, or do they have an active pastoral search committee?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Sounds like original research which we should avoid. By all means if you find reliable sources covering these areas, I will support the additions. Insomesia (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• WP:OR is a content policy.  Content policy applies to the content of articles.  This is a talk page.  What we should avoid is a coatrack.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Correct, we should avoid original research and a coatrack, I'm not seeing evidence of either in the article but there may be reliable sources that I'm not aware of presently. I've asked for uninvolved opinions so we may be able to see a path forward. Insomesia (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Nice try, but I am an uninvolved editor.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• You are most certainly involved as both already taking part on this discussion as well as one of the leading contributors to the article itself. You are involved already. Insomesia (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Nice try again, I have edited on this article for one day.  It now appears that you were edit warring to prevent me from improving the article on that day, as per mention of edit warring posted at BLPN and mention of edit warring posted on your talk page.  One of those reverts was to restore a "Creep of the Week" article, which shows what you consider to be reliable for BLP.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Your concerns are noted. Insomesia (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor's comments

{{uninvolved|Advice|The discussion is hitting problems repeatedly, or making poor progress. Uninvolved experienced users are requested to get involved in the thread to help improve the quality of discussion, to reduce the impact of the problems, or to increase its quality and the chances of a useful resolution. Users are arguing over whether something is or isn't okay; independent advice/input from experienced users would be appreciated.}}

Noting that the {{uninvolved}} tag was placed on the article at 01:07, 30 August 2012, many edits and nearly a month ago, by User:Insomesia, I was wondering if the issue(s) had been resolved yet, or if help was still needed. Wbm1058 (talk) 04:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe the issue is now passe, and the uninvolved tag can probably be removed at this point. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done I believe the issue was regarding the {{coat rack}} tag, and as that tag is no longer on the article, the issue has been resolved. Wbm1058 (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Removal

I have removed the coatrack tag from the article as the article has undergone significant revision since it was placed. As it stands, the article provides a factual, well-referenced summary of the church and it's activities, citing 24 sources. Through its own activities, the church has gained both notability and notoriety in the public eye. While it is arguable that the article is weighted towards the church's hate speech and incitement to violence, it is not the role of Wikipedia to portray subjects in an overly favorable manner, especially when reliable sources say otherwise. Further, WP:COATRACK is "an essay which contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies." In this case, I believe that coatrack was used as a bludgeon to attempt to discredit the article with a tag of shame, while parallel efforts attempting to have the article deleted.

Editors who still believe that the article is lacking in the its portrayal of the Faithful Word Baptist Church as a fine, ecumenical organization are invited to actually contribute to the article's improvement rather than swooping in with reverts, tag bombs and whitewashing. – MrX 15:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Your description doesn't indicate that you understand the meaning of the {{coatrack}} tag. The tag indicatest hat the article contains information about other, possibly related, subjects, rather than this one, and attributes their actions to this subject. My assertion, at least, was that Anderson is not equal to FWBC, and things that he does should not be attributed to the Church, or be in the church's article, unless a reliable source makes the connection. Being the leader of the church is not, in itself, an adequate connection; nor is SPLC's assertion (except in sentences clearly attributed as SPLC's opinions). Your argument is bogus, but you may be correct that the tag should be removed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Being the leader of the church is precisely what prevents this from being a coatrack. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Not without a reliable source that Anderson's actions in question were as part of the church. (And his own statements are not adequately reliable, nor are SPLC's.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

All the sources originally cited, many have been switched around or out, were reporting on the actions of the church, it's founder/leader and followers. It's disingenuous to pretend that the man who founded the church, nearly solely runs it and whose sermons are advertised and promoted by him as an agent of the church, and who is reported as the pastor, etc etc is now somehow divorced from the church because he has brought national shame to his organization, that he founded and runs. Nor is it honest to try to discredit the SPLC (again) when many discussions have upheld them as a source, even on BLP articles. If you have a specific wording you feel could be improved then perhaps that would be a more constructive way of helping the article. Insomesia (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced edits

I am opening this section with the hope that 68.189.130.204 will discuss their proposed changes to the article. It is important that we remain faithful to our reliable sources, and not add personal analysis or commentary.- MrX 00:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

In accordance with the guidelines, I am stating my case in the talk page, as follows: The use of the word "extreme" in reference to Faithful Word Baptist church is purely subjective and speculative. If Wikipedia's aim is to be truly objective, then the word "extreme" should be removed in all references to this church and the pastor.

Secondly, there is a major inaccuracy in the article relating to the hate group designation which implied that Pastor Anderson recommended the killing of sodomites, whereas he clearly delineated the fact that he does not endorse any type of vigilante justice but stated that it is the government's role to execute criminals if they were following Biblical law. That is a vast difference than saying he recommend killing sodomites.

Just trying to make this article more accurate, however, it seems that Haminoon and others engaged in this editing war with me have a personal agenda and do not wish this article to be objective but rather want to slander a church and its pastor for their own gain.

I challenge the word "extreme" to be removed without further dispute as well as the other change I mentioned above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.130.204 (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you about "extreme", but saying that the government should execute criminals, and that sodomites should be criminals is not much different from saying "we" should execute sodomites. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

SPLC notes

Is "notes" a sufficiently neutral word? It seems to implies accuracy of the statement, which is not something we can legitimately do. Perhaps "reports". (I'd prefer "alleges", but that may imply inaccuracy of the statement.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought notes, noted was neutral, alleged is certainly not. I see notes as synonymous with reports. Insomesia (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

From WP:SAY (with italics in the original)

Said, stated, described, wrote, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person revealed, pointed out, exposed, explained, or found something can imply that it is true, where a neutral account might preclude such an endorsement. To write that someone noted, observed, insisted, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the speaker's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence when that is unverifiable.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Said, stated, described, wrote, and according to all seem fine to me. Insomesia (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I have added another repetition of the word "notes" without being aware of this discussion.  To me, "notes" is something that note-takers do (or take).  Notes is what are entered into Windows Notepad, which is the simplest of the Windows editors.  I think that accurately transcribing what the source said doesn't imply anything about the content being transcribed.  "Said" and "stated" partially imply a speaker, just as "wrote" perhaps unnecessarily personifies an organization.  "According to" is neutral, but not a synonym.  "Described" is wrong in the context.  And perhaps if a person "notes" this is less neutral than saying that an organization "notes"?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that the SPLC isn't a reliable source and the the passage on FWBC isn't sourced in any way. So it's all allegation, if we want to have it in the article anyway. 41.150.67.28 (talk) 07:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Orlando shooting

Pastor Steven Anderson claims good news about the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting is that there are 50 fewer pedophiles in the world. Anderson maintains the victims were automatically all pedophiles. Anderson maintains, 'shooting up' a gay bar is wrong but but claims a 'righteous government' should have tried the victims in court and had them executed according to 'God's perfect law'.Christian Pastor Celebrates Nightclub Massacre: “There’s 50 Less Pedophiles in This World” Response to Orlando Gay Bar Shooting (Florida nightclub)

I read the text and I watched the YouTube video. This information is accurate. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for starting a talk page discussion. However, it isn't enough that the information is accurate. It needs to be significant and reliably sourced. Patheos is not a reliable source. StAnselm (talk) 08:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. First it's not written in an encyclopedic style or tone. Second, if flatly fails WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:RS. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX.- MrX 10:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Tempe Pastor Hails Orlando Massacre for Leaving '50 Less Pedophiles in This World': Video How much will the Phoenix New Times go towards the weight and sourcing issues? BiologicalMe (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It certainly would be usable source. Here is another [1]. At this point, I have no objection to adding a brief sentence or two mentioning that Anderson has commented about the shooting.- MrX 19:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The webpage, http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/tempe-pastor-hails-orlando-massacre-for-leaving-50-less-pedophiles-in-this-world-video-8372346 states, 'Anderson isn't alone in his sentiments. (The video has amassed more than 115,000 pageviews to date, with reactions running about 10 to one against.)' Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

That level of detail is tangential to thesubject of the article (the "church"). The Phoenix New Times is a very weak source, so we should only use it for information appearing in other sources. The golden nugget here is that the church's leader posted a video filled with hateful rhetoric on YouTube and it was removed. This article doesn't exist to help him publish his fringe ideas.- MrX 11:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The Washington Post is not a weak source and a fair amount of the content you deleted can be found within it.[2]. While I may have been overly detailed, a complete removal of video content seems excessive. No weight is not due weight. BiologicalMe (talk) 12:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Bible verses

An editor has repeatedly inserted bible verses taken from the subject's web site. Other editors have objected. I'm opening this section so that the editor wishing this content to be included can attempt to achieve consensus.- MrX 12:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Asking the IP if they have any independent reliable sources mentioning these verses. Doug Weller talk 13:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so first things first. "I" did not add the Bible verses. They were already there and YOU decided to remove them. So, the burden of proof is on YOU to say they shouldn't be there. They should be there, because we're talking about where Steven Anderson is getting his belief from the Bible that homosexuals should be put to death. As these aren't Steven Anderson's views, it needs to be reliably said that Steven Anderson is getting these from the Bible. We can't claim them as Steven Anderson's own beliefs when he's getting them from the Bible, something millions of people on earth believe in the exact same thing.

Anyone with any mentality at all will know that the church's own website is by far the best source for its own talk page. It is sourced incredibly well at http://faithfulwordbaptist.org/truth_about_homosexuals.html where Steven Anderson gets his views from. The verses are said here and http://faithfulwordbaptist.org/truth_about_homosexuals.html should be included as a source. The verses should be put back in the main text as liberal editors would rather have their own agenda pushed forward than the truth about the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.158.118.254 (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yawn. Put them back because you don't like what you think is the politics of some editors? No, we'll follow our guidelines. And no, the church isn't the best source for its article, as our articles are meant to be based on what reliable sources say about the subject of the article, not what the subject says about itself. If we did the latter we might as well just redirect to something like Facebook, as we wouldn't be an encyclopedia. Doug Weller talk 16:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Banned from South Africa

BBC news reported that he was banned from entering South Africa due to hate speech (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-37349683). As this is from a reputable source, can this be added to the article by someone with editing privileges? Thanks. Jasecloud4 (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Anderson cannot teach Once Saved Always Saved

I mean, what if a saved person becomes homosexual? MrLW97 (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@MrLW97: Anderson gets around this by preaching that it's impossible for someone who is "truly" saved to become a homosexual. This is similar to Calvinist teaching, that anybody who recants Christianity was never actually saved to begin with. In the article I cited one of his blog posts where he goes into this in depth, you can also find it in his sermons about his "Reprobate Doctrine". Anderson is not a Calvinist, he doesn't believe in the TULIP, he has his own definition of reprobation. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 04:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that Anderson teaches that it's impossible to know if someone is "truly" saved or not, he believes that it's only possible for someone to be sure of their own salvation. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: Overall I would consider Anderson as a Calvinist, his definition fits much under the P-point ("if a person is truly saved, he won't do this and that"). I believe in Once Saved Always Saved, however, I do not believe that the believer perseveres himself, I believe that he gets perservered by God, accord to John, Chapter 10, Verse 27 to 29. Like Anderson I am KJV-only and I believe in salvation through faith alone and eternal security, just with the difference that I believe in no such thing as reprobates (Jack Hyles taught that too). Oh, and by not knowing I agree in some parts. Here a qoute by John R. Rice from his book Dr. Rice... Here Are More Questions: "Being saved, born again, is one thing; learning to live a consecrated Christian life is an entirely different thing. There is not any way you can judge whether people are born again except as you take their testimony that they have put their trust in Jesus Christ and depended on Him for salvation. Some of these young people indeed may not have been taught to trust in Christ. If they were looking for "an experience," a certain kind of feeling or emotion, then they may have been misled. But if they honestly turned their hearts to Christ and depended on Him for salvation, they were saved." And I have to agree with that. MrLW97 (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@MrLW97: I would class Steven Anderson as a "confused Calvinist". He believes in some kind of strange form of "perseverance of the saints", that's for sure. Despite this he has multiple sermons preaching anti-Calvinism: {("Five Points of Calvinism Refuted", 21 October 2013), ("Once Saved Always Saved", 23 February 2014), ("Rant Against Calvinism", excerpted from "Calling Upon the Name of God Almighty", 3 June 2010), many other clips in like manner}.

From my understanding, his theology is like this:

• Total depravity - I can't find any indication that he believes this.
• Unconditional election - This point is very confusing with Andersonite theology. He states in "Five Points of Calvinism Refuted" beginning at timecode 31:18, "Here's the key, He says in Romans 8:29 "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son." What does it mean that God foreknew? Doesn't that mean that God knew in advance, so that means before this world was ever created, God knew who would be saved and who would not be saved? See but here's where Calvinists twist the truth: they say that God chose who would be saved and who would not be saved based on nothing but his own will. Wrong. God's predestination of His people to be conformed to the image of his Son is based on foreknowledge. Now, if God's will was just based on, just his own will and that's it, what would be the point of foreknowledge? The fact is, God knew who would be saved, and then he predestined those people, you and I, to be conformed to the image of his Son, to be glorified, to be joint heirs with Jesus Christ. [...] Now people will say, "but if he knew..." [...] okay, here's an illustration [...] "What if there's a sporting event, let's say a football game, that happened a few days ago, right. And I know the outcome because I read it in the newspaper, what the outcome of that game was. Now, let's say you and I sit down and watch that game and you don't know the outcome and I do know the outcome, and we're sitting and watching the game, and I say, "hey, watch this! You know, this guy's about to make a touchdown." And then, the guy makes a touchdown. Would you look at me and say, "wow, you just made that guy get a touchdown! You're controlling the game! You have supernatural power to make things happen on the screen!" [...] Foreknowledge does not mean that you're in control of the game." I don't think I have to explain why this "explanation" does not fit the case of God at all and is completely nonsensical, so I'm at a loss as to what to do here.
• Limited atonement - given that Anderson believes homosexuals cannot be saved, it's pretty obvious to me that he believes in this. I'm sure he has some crazy explanation for it, but given how convoluted the explanation for unconditional election was, I find no need to explore further.
• Irresistible grace - I can't find any indication that he believes this.
• Perseverance of the saints against homosexuality and "falling into damnable heresies" as the only markers of reprobation.

As you can see, it's an extremely confused theology. Anderson knows this and is proud of it (Calvinists Exalt Their Logic Above Clear Scripture, excerpted from Luke 22, 17 January 2018).

@MrLW97: I really have no problem labeling him a Calvinist, as long as we in the "Doctrine" section of the article explain his unique convoluted brand of Calvinism. Any suggestions as to how to change the article text? Psiĥedelisto (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Title for this article

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED. Noting that the page was boldy and in good faith moved prior to the start of this discussion, consensus is clear that the title of this article should be "Faithful Word Baptist Church", and so I am about to restore the titles before the original move. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

---

Faithful Word Baptist Church → Steven L. Anderson – Should this article be titled Steven L. Anderson or Faithful Word Baptist Church? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• I have converted this RfC to a proper requested move so that the bot will advertise the discussion in the right places. CLOSER PLEASE NOTE that the page's title prior to this discussion/dispute was Faithful Word Baptist Church; if there is no consensus here for the move to the current title then the page should be moved back. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Survey (no threaded discussion, please)

• Steven L. Anderson - The vast bulk of this article is about the words and comments of and controversies caused by Steven L. Anderson. These have little to do with the congregation itself -- which is non-notable as a sect, and so small that it meets in an office in a strip mall -- but everything to do with Anderson himself. As such, the article should be under the title of the subject matter of the article, which is Steven L. Anderson, and not under the title of the church he created. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• Faithful Word Baptist Church - This is a notable sect, which calls itself the "new IFB" and which is called by various critics such as David Cloud as "Andersonism"; "Faithful Word Baptist Church" is a good middle ground. The sect is at least as notable as the Westboro Baptist Church sect, and in my opinion it is even more so given the fact that there are actually a constellation of ministers aligned with Ptr. Steven L. Anderson, such as Ptr. Roger Jimenez and Ptr. Joe Major. I disagree with the move. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 08:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

How big is this "notable sect"? How many active members? Evidence? HiLo48 (talk) 10:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• Faithful Word Baptist Church and restore original wording. The article is mostly about the church and contains little biographical content about its pastor. Once the bold move was contested, it should have been moved back. IN any case, unless there is consensus to move this to Steven L. Anderson or some other title, it has to be moved back. - MrX 🖋 10:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, it looks the title was challenged by GeoffreyT2000, but Beyond My Ken edit-warred his version back in. That's a big no no.- MrX 🖋 10:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The church is a very small, but notable, church ran by a non-notable person. This is evidenced by conducting a simple Google search or reading some cited sources. Moving the title does nothing more than create confusion for our readers. Once the original move was challenged, it was supposed to be reversed and kicked to RM. An admin overriding this practice does not make it right. The article should't have been moved and an admin should have moved it back.- MrX 🖋 11:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• Faithful Word Baptist Church this is a dumb mess. I have no opinion on the correct title, but the undiscussed move should be reverted since it has been objected to and an RM should be opened if it's desired to move it. There's nothing wrong with being bold in moves provided you aren't reckless. There is something wrong with refusing to revert an undiscussed move when it's clear there are objections, and then opening an RfC rather than a RM. (To be clear, this isn't a WP:BURO complaint. The former is important because as much as I tell people it doesn't matter if something is at the wrong place for a short time and it's defeatist to assume there will be no consensus, misusing tools sends the wrong message to everyone. The later matters because RMs are much more likely to get people familiar with norms surrounding article titles than RfCs. RMs have handled massive discussions like Myanmar. There's no reason to assume they can't handle this.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• Faithful Word Baptist Church – This is a flagrant violation of Wikipedia:Page mover#Page move disputes:

  This right should never be used to gain an upper hand in page move disputes. You have a privilege that most editors do not have. Editors without the right are sometimes unable to revert your moves (e.g. "round-robin" moves). Therefore, avoid making unilateral decisions, and revert upon request if a page move of yours proves to be reasonably controversial.

  This move needs to be reverted and an RM opened, per Nil Einne. Bradv 13:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• Faithful Word Baptist Church per Nil Einne. StAnselm (talk) 15:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Comment: RfC is inappropriate for article titles. WP:RM should be used instead. StAnselm (talk) 04:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

  One of the categories available for labelling RfCs is "Wikpedia style and naming". Looking at its history, I see discussions about the naming of the articles Saudi Arabia, French and Indian War, EOKA, Manchester Baby, Kind of Blue, K?d, Perche, Suicide, Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar, Milwaukee Bucks, Forever Alone, List of YouTubers, Supreme Leader of Iran, 2018 Gaza border protests, and so on. Clearly, you are clearly incorrect that RfCs are not appropriate for discussing article titles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

  @StAnselm: I don't mind discussing it here as per WP:IAR. I've considered this move myself so think that this is a useful discussion to have, even if I disagree with @Beyond My Ken:'s take. I doubt I would have seen this if it went to WP:RM only... Psiĥedelisto (talk) 08:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

  Many thanks for your reasonable stance on this.

  Concerning your comparison with Westboro, one difference I'd like to point out is that both Westboro and its founder, Fred Phelps, have articles, which is not the case here. If someone would like to propose splitting this into two articles -- one about the sect, and one about Anderson -- that would be a different matter, although the one about the sect would turn out to be fairly small. I don't believe (I think, I'd have to consider it in more detail) that such a split would be a good idea, so if we're going to have a single article on the group and it's founder, it still seems to me that the founder is the more notable of the two, or, at the very least, that its Anderson about who the majority of the references are. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Beyond My Ken: I'd like to question the methodology you're using to try to separate Anderson from his church, which I don't think is possible. Anything written about Anderson is also written about the church, as the church supported him financially, legally and personally in every deportation order and every statement he made. It's not like he wished for the death of Obama and his church suffered schism, far from it. I don't think they can be separated to the degree you imply. Yes, Anderson got deported from many countries. But in all cases his church members were there backing him up, and in at least one case his deacons got deported too! Psiĥedelisto (talk) 12:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Beyond My Ken: Concerning your comment of 10:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC), see WP:RFC#Categories which states The "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" category is for discussing changes to the policies and guidelines themselves, not for discussing how to apply them to a specific case. The same applies to "style", "WikiProject", and the other non-article categories. Therefore, the "Wikipedia style and naming" category is for discussing changes to the guidelines on style and naming themselves, not for discussing how to apply them to a specific case. This then is not a matter which requires the |style parameter, and those others that you listed are merely examples of miscategorisation - how many of them remained listed at WP:RFC/STYLE for the full thirty days, not being pulled early? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Redrose64: Can I please know why you hijacked my comment about the merits of the title to argue about Wikipedia procedures? I don't see how your reply relates to what I wrote at all. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 12:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Psiĥedelisto: I don't understand. Which comment have I "hijacked", and in what way did I "hijack" it? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Redrose64: Unless I fundamentally misunderstand Wikipedia talk page commenting, you wrote your comment at an indentation level under mine, representing it as a reply to me. Because of this you had to write Concerning your comment of 10:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC), instead of just putting your comment below that comment, which is what I would have done and which I think is what most editors would have done. Since it wasn't intentional though, it's not a problem, but in the future I'd refrain from ever writing something like Concerning your comment of 10:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC), and instead putting your comment in the right place and at the right indentation level so there's no question as to who you're talking to. I would further encourage you to review Help:Talk_pages#Replying_to_an_existing_thread. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 13:38, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

  You're telling me, who has been around for more than nine years (and almost seven years more than yourself), how to use a talk page? It says "Add your comment below the last entry in the discussion.". That is what I did. It continues with "If you want to respond to a specific comment, you can place your response directly below it" - that is "can", not "must". To avoid any misunderstanding, I also indicated precisely who I was replying to: and unless you are a sockpuppet, I am certain that Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) and Psiĥedelisto (talk · contribs) are different people. If anybody's comment has been "hijacked", it is that of StAnselm (talk · contribs), who first raised the matter of the inappropriateness of WP:RFC for deciding the name of an article, and it is on that exact matter that I commented. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Redrose64: I wasn't aware that the length of time you've used this site makes you impervious to possible mistakes. I understand that it it is not a sanctionable rule that you need to put your comments at the normative indentation level and location, it is just a guideline for the purposes of readability. I am most certainly not the same editor as Beyond My Ken. Fine, don't comment like everyone else (or at least the vast supermajority) does if you don't want to. In my opinion it's a strange way to attempt to be unique, so much so I thought it must be a mistake; but if it's your way of standing out from the crowd, don't let reasonable guidelines stand in the way of your quest. I think this conversation is pointless to continue so let's just agree to disagree. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

  So you are saying that all of those RfC discussions listed above were incorrect? ARe is it simply that either format can be useful? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• @MrX: Concerning the "original title": this article was created on 8 July 2012. At that time, it consisted of the single sentence "Faithful Word Baptist Church is a fundamentalist, King James only Baptist church in Tempe, Arizona", so the title "Faithful Word Baptist Church" selected by the creator of the article was appropriate. Now, the article has 49 sentences, 13 of which are about the church, 7 are about both Anderson and the church, and the remaining 29 sentences are solely about Anderson. That means that a third of the article is solely about the church, while two-thirds is about Anderson's views, actions and statements. The state of the article now makes it primarly about Anderson, and not the sect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• @HiLo48: If we go by self-reported statistics, Faithful Word Baptist Church alone, not including other churches in the "new IFB" movement, has over 300 weekly attendees on Sunday mornings according to a third party theologian who went there as part of research he was doing (and saw a sign on the wall claiming this number as a record).
  This is large for a church in the United States, or worldwide really. It's not a megachurch by any means, but it's definitely larger than average; compared to Westboro, it's enormous! Based on the YouTube videos online which show crowd size, and the fact that the church has expanded multiple times into nearby space, I see no reason to doubt the self-reported attendance. The church is certainly one of the largest, if not the largest, independent fundamental Baptist church in the USA. According to the Washington Post, Ptr. Roger Jimenez, a minister who is very similar to Ptr. Anderson in beliefs, had an attendance of 206 in June 2016. There are other pastors aligned with them as well, they even hold conferences. According to The Entire Bible Preached, a project of FWBC, fourteen preachers are aligned with them doctrinally. This sect is notable and growing. Yes, it is very extreme. Yes, they are bigoted and hateful. But they are a sign of the times, and their extremism doesn't make them NN. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 12:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Thank you. This information needs to be in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic to the RfC
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Concerning the second statement by MrX above: The analysis is incorrect. The actual sequence of events was this: I moved the article, botching the round-robin move. A number of admins helped to fix the move, merging histories which got separated. StAnselm opened a "technical" RM request. This request was turned down by admins. StAnselm then filed an inappropriate second request -- he should have proceeded to an RM or RfC -- which GeoffreyT2000 -- a non-admin page mover -- made, possibly without being aware that it had already been turned down by admins. This is the move I reverted, putting the article back to the last approved title. There was no "big no no" on my part. The only possible violations of policy were by StAnselm in filing a second request after his first had been rejected, and GT20, if he made the move knowing that it had already been rejected by an admin who specializes in RMs. In any event, this is another subject altogether, and not the subject of this RfC, since the consensus of this RfC can be implemented wherever the article happens to be at the moment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC) I disagree with your analysis and your oversimplification. The church is a very small, but notable, church ran by a non-notable person. This is evidence by conducting simple Google search or reading some cited sources. Moving the title does nothing more than create confusion for our readers. Once the original move was challenged, it was supposed to be reversed and kicked to RM. An admin overriding this practice does not make it right.- MrX 🖋 10:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC) Again, your facts are incorrect. A "technical" RM is a request for an admin to make a move which an editor cannot make. They are always evaluated by an admin, and either accepted or rejected -- that's their role in the process. The rejection of StAnselm's challenge (which was not actually a technical request) by Anthony Appleyard came after I moved the article, but before GT20 moved it on the basis of an inappropriate second request by StAnselm, an inappropriate move considering that the RM request had just been rejected. Kindly discuss the issue at hand, the preferred name of the article, and not these peripheral matters, especially if you're gong to continue to misconstrue the actual order of events. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC) Again, the article should't have been moved and an admin should have moved it back. Maybe listen to all the experienced editors who have already told you this?- MrX 🖋 11:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC) No, that's OK, I'll stick with the move I made, which was correct on the basis of the article's content, but I will -- of course -- adhere to the reseult of the RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I should clarify I'm not saying BMK did any of this with the intentions of getting their title through the back door if necessary. It's simply that there is a risk this will end up as no consensus. And if it does when considering the misuse of tools issue, combined with the RfC vs RM issue, the perception is going to be very bad. Heck the RfC vs RM issue combined with the history is enough by itself considering the history such that even if Steven L. Anderson is the consensus, people may still legitimately feel aggrieved. As much as people want to AGF, it's also hard to escape the feeling that things have been done in such as way to try and get the result you want someway or the other when things look that way. There is therefore enough of a risk it will be a sore and mess that will at a minimum lead to a lot of ill feeling and at worse nasty AN//I threads and maybe blocks. Rather than running the risk this will happen, it would be far better if the normal process, used for countless pages is followed. It's not really that hard. 1) Move 2) Whoops I was sure this would be uncontroversial but clearly I'm wrong, sorry screwed up, I'll revert. 3) Open a discussion and if it's clear the objector and mover can't agree, an RM; or a straight RM. Simply. Easy. No fuss. Everyone is happy as they can be considering they may disagree on the title. Hopefully everyone comes to the discussion or RM with an open mind and willingness to hear each other's POV. Perhaps even unanimity since either the objector or the mover changes their mind as a result of the discussion or RM. Yes maybe the RM will be no consensus, if so that's unfortunate but at least since normal procedures were followed, no one should feel that things were done to try and ensure a certain outcome. Nil Einne (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Nil Einne: Yes, in retrospect that would have been cleaner, and perhaps if StAnselm hadn't filed his ex post facto "tecnical move" request, and have it rejected (as often happens), and then file another technical move request (instead of starting an RM), which another editor answered and then moved the article, then perhaps it would have shaken out that way. In other words, in the best of all possible worlds, where all the players -- including myself -- had done the right thing, things would have been cleaner and simpler; but the world's a messy place, and this was a messy move, a I bear some -- but far from all -- the responsibility for that. So far, the other actors in this drama have preferred to pillory me instead of owning up to their own parts in bringing us to this place. So, I guess I get to be the sacrificial lamb; meh. Beyond My Ken (talk)

•  Administrator note this page has been moved and the history fragmented several times over the last couple days, confounding several experienced history mergers, and so it is now move protected. Any admin has my assent to remove protection when this RfC concludes. I strongly recommend leaving any moves necessary from this discussion to an administrator; feel free to ping me when the time comes. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

  I've also removed the RfC header and added the proper requested move banner, with a note about reverting the move if there is no consensus here. I can't dictate but strongly suggest to the participants that a discussion of Beyond My Ken's userrights should be held separate from this discussion, if editors are interested in doing so (and note that a proposal has already been made at WP:AN). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

  That's fine. You can disregard my query on your talk page.- MrX 🖋 17:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector: I'm quite confused about how to get this moved back to the original title now. Most of the people who've commented on this commented before the RfC became an RM, and asked that it become an RM. So now it seems like only myself and MrX have actually disputed this on the merits of the article title...but with so many comments at first glance it seems like there is a landslide of support for the FWBC name...so will an uninvolved really editor really comment on the merits or rather just on the process? What's worse, despite your note, the template on the article page makes it seem like the original title wasn't always FWBC. I wrote the majority of the lead and the section on "Church doctrine" (which used to just be called "Doctrine")...So can you explain how this will actually be resolved? Psiĥedelisto (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, it's rather simple, just determine what the title should be. The only real procedural oddity is that a no consensus result should move the page back, and if the eventual closer doesn't then let me know and I will. On the technical side it's complicated because of the botched round robin and some fractured history and deleted contribs, so an admin should do it (a page mover can, but I don't think PMs can see deleted revisions to move them to the right places) and that's why it really shouldn't be moved until there's some agreement on where all the pages belong.

  For admins trying to make sense of this: it looks to me like a second round robin move involving FWBC was interrupted by a user reverting one of the pages, and now some of that page's history belongs with Faithful Word Baptist Church. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector: Thanks for taking the time to write an explanation, I get it now. I'm not necessarily a new editor; I just contribute to Wikipedia mostly by writing so have never dealt with procedural/technical problems before... Psiĥedelisto (talk) 12:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Ivanvector: The RM is elapsed. Please move the page back. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 10:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

BP Facts out of order?

They did not ask him to pull over because of the the alert from the Dog, he was already refusing to move. The alert was used by law enforcement (local not BP) to justify their actions. This dog was not brought in until the end of the affair. Super (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Death threats

Do we have anyone's word on this besides the pastor? If not we shouldn't state it as fact but instead as "according to Anderson." Also he founded the church and I think that needs to remain in the lead. Insomesia (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I added the fact that he founded the church to the lede. On the death threats, do you actually doubt that he received them? Why does that seem implausible? AzureCitizen (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

We need to present facts with due weight. If delivered as a fact in Wikipedia's voice it states that we verified through reliable sources, if it's only his word then we can state that he reported this. Same rule for all. Insomesia (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed: "Same rule for all." That would also account for all the other sources or not. Anyway, concerning the death and rape threats from people with homosexual fantasies, he did show the emails. It's even in the BBC program about him. --41.151.9.214 (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

He has played numerous clips of the emails and voicemails he has received. I can go online and search his name and see hundreds of threats in comment sections in multiple places. THis is a bit dishonest becasue there are just to way to much to lend to this. Super (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Alt-Right Labeling

Pastor Steven Anderson of the Faithful Word Baptist Church has many qualities of the alt-right. First off, he is severely homophobic. Second of all, he is highly misogynistic. Finally, he has been shown to be racist, especially in his documentary entitled "Marxist Lucifer King." He is also labeled under the "Alt-right" category in Rationalwiki. My requests are for the page "Faithful Word Baptist Church" to be labeled under the category "Alt-Right," and for the Alt-Right Template Footer to include Anderson under the People Category under the name "Steven L. Anderson." That is all for now. Thank you. Signed Rushwrj13 June 9, 2019 2:07 AM (Boston)

I haven't even looked at the article yet, but your comments share nothing but your opinions. If reliable sources clearly identify Faithful Word Baptist Church as alt-right then you may be on to something. But you're saying that the pastor is alt-right, not the church itself, so you're engaging in original research. Rationalwiki has zero value as a reference. Anastrophe (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I've just browsed through the article. Talk about WP:UNDUE. The article is about 80% too long. It's about a fringe church created by a fringe guy who has made a bunch of inflammatory statements to get attention, and we're delivering! The article nowhere even mentions the 'alt-right'. I can see no valid reason to add the tag, or even a point to doing so. Anastrophe (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, at this stage it would be completely original research. StAnselm (talk) 02:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)