Talk:Westboro Baptist Church/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk archives for Westboro Baptist Church (current talk page)
<< 1          Archive 1 Archive 2 > 3 >>
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Sweden

The legal actions taken by the Swedish royal family is according to the article in SvD not for his comments about Sweden in general, but for his comments about the royal family per se, and then especially his comments about princess Madeleine claiming she being indecent.

  • Out of curiosity - does anyone know what these creatures (I won't have them in the same category as us humans) at WBC make of the United Nations? I can imagine they'll hate it, as they seem to hate everything in the universe, but it would be interesting to know...
  • I completely agree with the guy above me, but as this is an encyclopedia, why do we have to start an article about a schurch off with "hate group"?
  • Perhaps because these are a group of people who rejoyce when thousands of children die in terrible tragedies and come to funerals to yell vial things at the loved ones of the people that fought for their rights. What the hell should we start it off with? This is a local church that has very good after-school programs?Dan 14:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hatred of Islam and muslims, however despicable, is not racism, and neither is hatred of Catholics or Catholicism. In general the racism section is pretty weak. There is plenty bad to be said about Phelps without bringing the allegation that he uses the word "nigger." --mikedelsol

Nice work. Much better. I removed the NPOV tag.--Cberlet 02:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

This article could be accused of not quite attaining NPOV, but it is clear that the writers have made an attempt to see this ridiculous crusade from both sides that is nothing short of heroic. -- Patrick Beverley, 15 August 2005

Former Members of Westboro Baptist Church

The article has been updated with the following:

"George Stutzman, Theresa Davis, Chris Davis, Karl Hockenbarger, Bill Hockenbarger and his wife, James Hockenbarger and Joshua Phelps-Roper are no longer members of the Westboro Baptist Church."

Where did this information come from? The Hockenbargers have been members of the church for a long time. I believe Chris Davis is married to Rebekah Phelps-Davis, one of Fred Phelps' children. His leaving the church would mean that he and Rebekah are no longer together. Joshua is one of the children of church spokesperson Shirley Phelps-Roper. His leaving would probably mean that he no longer has a relationship with his parents. (As Dorothea Bird once said: "If you're in, you're in. If you're out, you're out.)

JustinInAtlanta

Hate group

Any chance of this article having a further early emphasis on it being a recognised hate group?


Lies

The westboro baptist CULT disgrace me. They hate catholics because they aparantly abuse children and are homosexuals. This is absolute lies and heavily offensive. The fact that they make up so much lies and how there actions are contradicted within the bible should be given more attention. Anyone agree?


Appearance

I remember an appearance by a woman and her children on the Howard Stern show... they were members of the Westboro Church, and in the few minutes I watched one thing that the woman said struck me as an interesting point: "I don't hate fags, God hates fags," or something to that effect. And yes, Fred Phelps mentioned this subject in an April 2003 interview with BlackTable.com: (Here's the URL:[1] - JesseW 08:56, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC))

Article structure

I started some sections to give the article more structure, and made other indicated changes. -Willmcw 08:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comment

On a similar note, should we change references to this group from "church" to "organization?" I understand the name is Westboro Baptist Church, however for accuracy sake they are not really a "church." --LachlanMullen

This church praises dead Swedes

A friend gave me this. Copy and paste this link in to your webbrowser otherwise it won't work http://data.4channel.org/p/src/1104484357896.gif I don't know of its validity. If somebody want to add this to the article, go ahead. If you can't download the image: It's basically a flier by the church that praises the presumed 2000 deaths of Swedes in the recent asian tsunami. As a Swedish citizen I find it highly offensive that goes beyond words, so it would be impossible for me to write an unbiased addition to the article regarding this. Thanks, Mastgrr 11:29, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Criticism" section should be expanded further

I added a bit to it and think more criticism from both religious and secular public figures should continue to be added.

Parodies

If parodies are encyclopedic and appropriate for an article, should this one include the Landover Baptist satirical web site. --WCFrancis 19:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Landover Baptist is a parody of more mainstream fundamentalist churches. WBC might actually make a good parody of Landover. Guanaco 23:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Baptist

Er...so are they "Baptists"? The Calvinism tie-in doesn't sound right. I'm just wondering if we should clarify what formal relations this church may or may not have to any other religious groups; (ie: do these people have their own unique religion, or are they considered a radical offshoot of something else?) func(talk) 20:53, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

This needs to be explored more carefully. I do think they have adapted a doctrinaire version of Calvinisim, but it is unclear in the current text how that works. As for Christian Identity, someone needs to show Phelps has preasched or written that his flock is descended from one of the lost tribes of Israel and thus are the real "Jews" to actually be called Identity. I't not good enough to say some members used to be Identity, or that since both Identity and Phelps are hate groups, they are the same thing. Too weak. --Cberlet 14:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"They adhere largely to the principles of Christian Identity, to which several congregants also belong." SOurce this or it stays out. It is a very serious charge. See the paragraph above. There must be some documentation of the claim to be the "real" Jews of the covenant through ancestry. That's what Christian Identity is all about. See Christian Identity and British Israelism.--Cberlet 21:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Christian Identity charges are covered in the book on Phelps, "Addicted to Hate." Tolerance.org also lists Westboro as a Christian Identity church.70.243.43.69 06:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am a critic of Phelps, and he may well promote Christian Identity, but it needs to be cited to some proof that they promote the central tenet of Identity, which is that White Christians are descended from one of the lost tribes of Israel and thus are the real "Jews." Watchdog groups can make claims that turn out to be slightly off target. And I work at one, so I am just being cautious here. --Cberlet 14:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I just checked Tolerance.org (SPLC) and they do not list Phelps' church in their list of Christian Identity groups.--Cberlet 14:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Guilt by association is not up to Wiki standards. Please talk before simply re-inserting a claim that is not backed by the SPLC page previously cited.--Cberlet 16:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have studied Westboro; researched them, read up on them. I have even met a few of them. The nature of the group is thus: What Fred Phelps says, they all say; what Fred Phelps believe, they all believe. If Fred Phelps says that blacks are animals and that Westboro-ites are the chosen people rather than Jews, they ALL believe that blacks are animals and that Westboro-ites are the chosen people rather than Jews.70.243.43.69 16:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have also studied Westboro and have written extensively about Christian Identity. There is a reason that the SPLC does not come out and list the church as Christian Identity, and that is because the evidence is one tiny step behind that line. I suspect what you say may well be true, but it is wrong to state it outright. I have tried to write a sentence that is as strong as I think the evidence allows. --Cberlet 17:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry. I admit my mistake; Tolerance.org lists it as a hate group; the link I clicked from another page said that I was being re-directed to Tolerance's listing of Christian Identity groups. Upon second inspection, the link only leads to generic hate groups, not just CI.

Not to worry. What we ended up with was a strong sentence about Identity up at the top of the article, and in a wording that can be documented. So it was a good outcome. And I suspect at some point it may become clear that what we both suspect anout Phelps is true. --Cberlet 03:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have to question whether Tolerance.org is really a Reliable Source on who is or is not a hate group, let alone a Christian Identity group. Though it's a decent site, none of the main contributors have any credentials in theology or law or any relevant field. It doesn't really amount to more than a group blog.
I expect some governments officially designate groups as hate groups (Canada, perhaps?). If so, perhaps we could reference WBC's inclusion on some such official list.--CJGB (Chris) 23:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Current Members of the Westboro Baptist Church

User:83.216.148.11 is adding a large list of Current Members of the Westboro Baptist Church. Is there really any need for such an extense list? Would you please explain why? At least, certainly there is no need for all those duplicated and red links.--Nabla 2005-06-30 17:12:47 (UTC)

Cause the various members of the church tend to crop up in media reports on their activities all the time, and it would be nice to know about their relationships within the group. It also goes to show that all members can basically be traced back to three roots - Phelps, Hockenbarger and Stutzman. I spent a good amount of time researching this, and you're welcome to "clean it up" yourself - always easier to criticize than to do the actual work, isn't it? If you want to remove it altogether - ok, see if I care. 83.216.148.11 30 June 2005 17:18 (UTC)

In fact, why don't I save you the effort, I'll delete the list of members of the congregation. Thank you for the sterling service you've done to wikipedia, Nabla. 83.216.148.11 30 June 2005 17:32 (UTC)

If I wanted it deleted I would have done so. I simply suggested that you provided an explanation on why it is important and gave it a better formatting, mostly leaving red links only on those who merit its own article. I don't know anything about this subject so you would choose much better than I.
I'll use the explanation you gave here on the top of the list. And I'll format the list and remove *every* red link. Please put them back on where you believe they are important enough to have their own article.--Nabla 2005-06-30 19:28:08 (UTC)
Done, please disambiguate, or remove, the SRS link.--Nabla 2005-06-30 20:02:37 (UTC)

Does anyone know if the Westboro Baptist Church was actually expelled from the Southern Baptist Convention in 1991 over the WBC's extremist interpretations of Scripture? I'm trying to track down whether the leaders of the SBC at the time actually denounced Westboro as a cult. User: SkeeterVT 2006-05-26 02:02 (EDT)

I am distubed that the Current Members of Westboro Baptist Church page was removed. I found this page useful. Youtube recently featured a video made in Greensboro while members were picketing the SBC. It was an interview by a local pastor. Shirley identified a boy standing on the American flag as "her tenth child." I tried to go to this page to find the identity of the child and his age, and the page was gone. Another good use of this page is that WBC publishes summaries of the pickets they do that include the names of the people present at the picket. If someone doesn't recognize one of the names, they could go to this page and find out who the person is. Please consider re-adding the page. JustinInAtlanta

NPOV

I have added an NPOV tag to this article. There is scarcely a sympathetic viewpoint in the article, and many of the quotations are unsourced, with perhaps a barely implied reference to the congregation's website. Surely some group must have published something agreeing with Phelps's views. Moreover, much of the writing itself is not balanced. For example, it is hardly NPOV to introduce the Christian Identity movement with only the descriptors "anti-Semitic" and "racist" without first giving at least a phrase to describe what this movement is and does. NatusRoma 02:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

To reiterate and specify:

  • Arrests that occurred four years prior to the formation of the church are not germane to this article.
  • Unqualified descriptions of church members' actions as "hypocrisy" is in no way neutral.
  • This article describes the Christian Identity movement as something cohesive. While I am unfamiliar with the movement, the Wikipedia article describes it as quite disorganized in nature.
  • This article is devoid of any outside views sympathetic to the church. Such views, as long as they are not extreme minority views, form the cornerstone of a neutral point of view.
  • Perhaps most importantly for such a controversial subject, large parts of the article are unsourced. Consider:
  • This article contains 10 sections with level 2 headings, seven of which contain no level 3 subsections, and three of which contain a total of 19 level 3 subsections.
  • Of the seven, two are concerned with references. Of the other five, three are entirely unsourced, including "The Compound", "Responses", and "Criticism".
Of the 19 level 3 headings, 10 are entirely unsourced, including "Theology", "Doomsday Vision", "Criminal Record", "Violence Against Westboro", "September 11 and the Shuttle Columbia", "London Terrorist Attacks", "Child Molestation Stance", "Anti-Asian racism", "Anti-Catholicism", and "Anti-Obesity Stance".

These sections state that church members have been convicted of crimes, and include statements that could be construed as libel or slander against their targets. I won't even mention the numerous objectionable deeds that Phelps and other church members have committed. Simply put, this material is unbelievable. In order to show people the true horror of Phelps's views, those views must be accurately described and clearly sourced. Anything less will simply aid Phelps's cause. NatusRoma 06:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Nearly everything you say is "unsourced" can be found, as the article states, in the book "Addicted to Hate" (Criminal Record) or on Westboro's own homepage ("Theology", "Doomsday Vision," "Violence against Westboro, September 11 and the Shuttle Columbia," "London Terrorist Attacks," "Child Molestation Stance," "Anti-Asian racism," "Anti-Catholocism," "Anti-Obesity Stance"). Instead of saying these things aren't "Neutral" and labelling the article as being biased, why not take the time to make corrections?

Thank you for including those links. I admit that I have been quite reluctant to delve at all deeply into Phelps's website. I think that we have already made this article more NPOV. However, this article still includes no outside opinions sympathetic to Phelps and the WBC. Surely there must be some credible supporter out there. As vehemently as we disagree with Phelps's views, intellectual honesty demands that we acknowledge that there are those who agree with them. For more on why this is important, please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, especially the sections entitled "Fairness and sympathetic tone" and "Morally offensive views".
Please do not consider my criticisms of this article a personal criticism of you. I have raised these questions because I honestly want this to become a better article. We can work together to make it so. NatusRoma 05:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
The problem here is not the factual content, which is very accurate, but the tone of the article and the frequent POV wording. Actually, very few people--even in the Christian Right--agree with Phelps. If we all take a paragraph and try to make the wording less judgemental, it will go a long way toward fixing the problem. --Cberlet 12:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Please, no revert wars. Pick a paragraph and we can work on it together. One paragraph at a time. --Cberlet 12:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Let's not let us confuse NPOV as being required to have sympathetic viewpoints inlcuded if none can be found. If we can great, realizing that alot of the material one might have to go through to find a "creditble" sympathetic voice even if it exists would require going through alot of potentially upsetting material. I do agree about your points about revising the tone of the way the facts to maintain neutrality. But let the facts speak for themselves. Graniterock 19:00, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
That's a much better way to put it. I agree. --Cberlet 21:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I went through and changed a few minor things. But over all it seems to me that the article is fairly neutral. I'll try to deal with the points in order:

  • I think the "alleged cult" comment is ok. Westboro is listed as a cult in many directories on the internet.
  • Many websites link phelps with Christian ID movement. But many more indicate it's the same type of ideology but phelps sepcifically is much more fundamentalist and focused on homosexual issues so is likely seperate. I revised the article to comment there were similarities between Chrsitian ID mov. but not direct connection.
  • I removed the hypicrisy comment, but left in the facts about the incident. People will draw their own conclusions.
  • The article at the end talks about a video that is sympathetic to phelps. I think that is enough. If you someone else can find something cool. But being devoid of more sympathetic comments I do not think makes this article non-neutral.
  • there are lots of things not sourced, but alot is sourced. The unsourced things seem to be legit. I will add a link to the end of the article from Topeka newspaper which cites many of phelps legal issues. I don't have time to cite every single little thing, but I have no reason to disbelieve it. Perhaps over time we can work to find sources for everything. Just because something is not cited, doesn't mean it isn't neutral.

I think that deals with all of the concerns stated so far. Maybe over the next few months we can work on getting everything properly cited. While the article perhaps needs some more work, I think overall I think it meets the spirit of being neutral. Graniterock 00:41, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Page name

Does anyone have a problem with moving this article back to Westboro Baptist Church? If not, the redirect with that name must be speedily deleted first. Guanaco 01:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I vote Move --Orborde 05:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Katrina

I find it hard to believe these whackjobs haven't commented on the New Orleans disaster yet. Anyone know anything about that?--Deridolus 23:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Check the front page of godhatesamerica, it beings "Thank God for Katrina [...] New Orleans, symbol of America, seen for what it is: a putrid, toxic, stinking cesspool of fag fecal matter." -jackd, 7 September 2005

"I Like to Watch" song

The article here says WBC wrote a song titled "I Like to Watch," however I thought that that was a song by the Church of Euthanasia. Also, the description of the WBC song reminds me of the CoE's video (careful, it's not at all work-safe). I googled "I Like to Watch" Westboro, but all I got were Wikipedia clones. Xen0phile | (talk) 04:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

It very well could be/could have been, but it was attributed to Phelps, and Phelps' quasi-sexual comments relating to the attacks certainly didn't help to dispel any rumors. I think at one point Phelps even commented that he enjoyed watching re-runs of the footage of the planes striking the towers, which is what the narrator of the song talks about; this probably only reinforced the idea that Phelps was responsible, and Phelps certainly didn't put forth any effort to dispel those rumors. I'll adjust the article accordingly.70.243.32.96 04:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Baptist Part II

I think there needs to be a separate section describing the congregational polity of the Baptist Church. As far as I know, aren't most individual Baptist congregations supposed to be doctrinally independant? Somone reading this article who is not familiar with how Baptists organize might think that there is some Baptist pope somewhere that approves of Fred Phelps and Westboro, while in truth they may not really be affiliated with or accountable to any other Baptist individuals congregations. It might also be good to include a representative quote from other Baptists saying something to the effect of "Many/Most Baptists disagree with Fred Phelps and dissociate themselves from his message of hate" MPS 19:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hierarchy of sin

Has WBC ever actually professed this "hierarchy of sin"? I can't find anything on a "hierarchy of sin" on Google relating to WBC or Phelps except on Wikipedia mirrors. Guanaco 21:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The "hierarchy of sin" set forth by Westboro is as follows:

  • Insulting or opposing Westboro Baptist Church or any of its members (which the group equates with blasphemy of the Holy Ghost, listed in the Bible as the sole unforgivable sin)
  • Homosexuality
  • All forms of sexual activity, other than that within the confines of marriage and only in the "traditional" missionary position (the group has, on at least one occasion, branded all non-missionary sex as "kinky")
  • Abortion
  • Adultery

They have never said that. It originates in the author's imagination. In fact, Phelps has said that the Bible is silent on what goes on sexual in a marriage and that the marriage bed is undefiled. I'd like to see something that says all non-missionary sex is kinky.

1) They say that mockery of WBC is equivalent with blasphemy of the Holy Ghost, the unforgivable sin. This tops Homosexuality, since they have "repentant fag" testimonies 2) Homosexuality, obviously 3) Look it up on WBC for yourself: "No kinky sex"

I will grant you, though, that the order of 3-5 could probably be shifted.

They need to get their priorities straightend out.

Transcript

Can someone explain why the transcript is so fervently being deleted (and referred to as "broken?") It's the church's beliefs in the words of two of its members, which, aside from Phelps, this entry does not have. It's rare for anyone except Fred, Margie, or Shirley to speak in public about their attitudes. For two twenty-something girls (Libby, I believe, might be only 19) to speak out as such, especially as they did, and to voice the contradictory opinion that they want everyone to go to hell, and that they like the pain of others regardless of any holy obligation, deserves recognition.70.242.1.244 06:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The transcript is broken because it is poorly formatted and does not include the questions the girls were asked. Also, where did you find this transcript? We need a link or the name of some publication so we can verify it. Unverifiable content should be removed. Guanaco 07:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I will post the link this time; as you shall see, it is not "broken" because they weren't asked any questions. They simply walked up to the interviewer and began spouting this stuff. The entirety of what they said is duplicated.

I don't believe the transcript should be included. 1) The transcript is poorly constructed, and what they are saying is hard to understand out of context. 2) No major ideas come across that haven't already been stated in the article. 3) The link to the video already exists, and the conversation with the girls is one of the most minor events of the video. I don't believe that the transcript adds anything to the article that is not already there in a more concise manner. Avengerx 00:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't think you understand the importance of exposing the lack of unification of thought and theology within the Westboro group. If it can be shown that when the family/congregants of Phelps are not being directly led, taught, or told what to say by Phelps or one of his high-ranking children are subject to their own anxieties and inability to think for themselves on the issues at hand, then this would be a significant feature of the Westboro group. Distingusihing features often make it into an article, because here at Wikipedia, we try to expose the truth rather than cover it up or attempt to stifle it. We are all adamantly aware of the thought of Phelps but light is rarely shed on his "lesser" children and especially his grandchildren. His grandchildren are a part of the church as well and your request of omitting this video and any content within is tantamount to the undermining of the very principles Wikipedia stands for in the quality of articles. --68.110.21.142 13:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Westboro Baptist Church a cult?

I don't think so! I think they have some things in common with the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, which is led by the British Commonwealth's fiercest Royalist, Ian Paisley of Ulster. What do you think? - (Aidan Work 06:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC))

Cult (kult) n.- A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.

1). Westboro's doctrine is so far deviated from any accepted form of Christianity that it has been deemed radical, extremist, and often blasphemous by nearly every religious denomination in the country, including the Baptists to whom they loosely affiliate themselves

2). The majority of the members of Westboro live inside of a fenced compound with a communal backyard, as already addressed in the article, with their church being the furnished basement of their leader. Those who do not live within the compound live within the immediate vicinity, and though rumor does not substantiate inclusion, it has been talked about for a while now in Topeka that WBC is attempting to gain ownership of the land around the compound so as to expand itself.

3). Fred Phelps declares himself to be a direct prophet of God and the only man alive on Earth who is capable of bringing anyone salvation. He claims that following or not following him directly correlates to salvation or damnation, directly, and that anyone who slights him has automatically earned damnation. He exerts total and absolute control over the members of his group, with those who manage to break away either being "damned" by the group or, on at least one occasion, mysteriously ending up dead.

WBC is, quite literally, a textbook case of a cult.70.242.1.244 20:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Cult is a POV view, if you are not a member, you might say cult, but if you are a member, you would say organization. This is Wikipedia, we must maintain NPOV. «»Who?¿?meta 18:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Cult is not a POV view. Of course the members aren't going to term it a cult; does that mean that no recognized cult can be called so because the members believe that it is not? What about Jim Jones, was he not a cult leader? The Westboro Baptist Church fits the dictionary definition of a cult to the 't'. I vote for the proper terminology on the page.Avengerx 19:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Given the negative connotations of the word cult, I can understand the need to be careful of what is called a cult and what is not. However, just because a word has negative connotations does not automatically make it a word that can not be used to describe things. If a cult is characterized by extreamist views, by an authoritarian leader with people living in unconvential manner, then yes, by the standards of society from which Westboro opperates, it is clearly a cult (not sure what other standard we would use). Thus I agree with Avengerx, cult is the terminology we should be using. Granite T. Rock 01:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

WBC certainly meets our definition of cult: a cult is a cohesive group of people (often a relatively small and new religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream.

WBC has 150 members and is relatively new. Their religious beliefs are far outside the mainstream, and most people are strongly offended by WBC's picketing practices. How could this group not be a cult? Guanaco 03:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The word "cult" is obviously POV. There are many definitions of "cult". Wikipedia has no definition for "cult", although we have an article about the topic we are not a dictionary. For this reason I have removed it yet again. Rhobite 00:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Rhobite, the word is an English word with obvious meaning and according to ANY dictionary you read, WBC falls under the category of a cult. There is a majority of people within the discussion who have agreed that cult is not POV. If you do not like the definition of the word, I suggest you appeal to the makers of dictionary to alter the meaning. I am going to revert, and we can discuss the a possible change here. Avengerx 00:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Dictionary definitions are irrelevant to this discussion. Dictionaries give broad definitions, they are not prescriptive language guides. Dictionaries are useless in most debates and arguments. The question we should be asking is whether there are negative connotations to the word "cult". The answer is yes. Therefore we must attribute any statements accusing them of being a cult. We cannot state it as a fact due to the NPOV policy. Truth is not an exception to the NPOV policy. Rhobite 01:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Are you at war with the dictionary establishment? Regardless, the negative connotations that follow the word 'cult' are natural. There are obvious negative connotations with words like 'facist' or 'dictator', but we still must use them when they apply. While the members of Westboro Baptist Church may not feel that they are a cult, but 99% of the English speaking world does. If we took into account the feelings of every person and group covered in Wikipedia, we would have Charles Manson and Jim Jones protesting their status as cult leaders. Catch my drift? Avengerx 01:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
No, I'm just tired of people who think that dictionaries provide "true definitions" of anything. All terms with negative or positive connotations should be used extremely cautiously in Wikipedia. Since the word "cult" is negative and poorly defined, we need to be very careful about using it. As I said dictionaries provide broad, unusable definitions. Anti-cult groups typically have checklists, none of which are authoritative or widely accepted definitions. Also this has nothing to do with hurting WBC's feelings, it is simply a requirement of the NPOV policy that we use neutral language. Rhobite 03:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
You're still avoiding my line of reasoning based upon the fact that if WBC isn't a cult, what is? Your logic is that we shouldn't refer to them as a cult because it has a negative connotation. The actions of the WBC are all worthy of a negative connotation by society. Under your line of reasoning, the People's Temple shouldn't be called a cult because that would involve a value judgement. Nothing can be described completely without bias or opinion; especially when it comes to sensitive topics such as religion. However, if an overarching percentage of society believes that something is deserving of a negative connotation, it is indeed academically appropriate to note that in an encyclopedia entry. WBC is a cult by dictionary definition, and by common concensus. Your logic is obviously flawed as per my People's Temple example. What say you now? Avengerx 04:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
It is also flawed logic to say that since we call People's Temple a cult, we should apply the label indiscriminately based on a dictionary definition. Let's stay on the topic of this article. I do not think there is a consensus to call WBC a cult, either on this site or in the media (media coverage of WBC usually refrains from using the term). I also think the language in the People's Temple article should be modified to say that the group was universally recognized as a cult, rather than stating that they were a cult as a fact. Rhobite 15:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps instead of labelling WBC as a cult, perhaps instead it should be stated that WBC is compatible with Dictionary X's definition of a cult. That is at least NPOV and perhaps factual (unless you want to dispute that it doesn't meet the definition as in Dictionary X). To pull things back a bit, I guess the broader question is, do we exclude words from Wikipedia if they have a negative connotation? We clearly do not allow derogatory terms except under special circumstances (such an entry for such a term). But is this true of all words with a negative connotation? And if so, what would the threshold be to make a word "negative". Granite T. Rock 19:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I would respond by saying that dictionaries are not good sources for resolving POV disputes. We do not exclude words from Wikipedia if they have a negative connotation - but we do require that their use is cited. It is fine for the article to mention notable people and groups who have accused WBC of being a cult. However Wikipedia can't state, as a fact, that they are a cult. That is POV. Rhobite 20:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Wow, fast reply. I got a conflict edit when I went back to clarify what I was saying. Perhaps a good reference to read on this is [NPOV - Characterizing Opinions of People's Work]. Just as we allow words with positive connotations into wikipedia in a certain way, should we not do the same with negative connotated words? Thus still stating WBC is a cult in the context that it is a widely viewed opinion (but perhaps not fact) would be IMHO the best way to go. So perhaps something to the effect of "WBC is considered by many to be a cult" or "Many people attribute cult-like attributes to WBC...." Granite T. Rock 20:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
But it isn't a widely held opinion. As I mentioned above, most news articles about WBC don't use the term "cult". I think it would be best if we cited specific people and organizations who believe that WBC is a cult. Rhobite 21:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Two points: A) we should not apply a label like "cult" based on our own research. If someone has notably used the label then we should attribute it to them. B) the lead paragraph should not contain negative info. We should first give a sympathetic description of the group, then give a sympathetic summary of the other views. -Willmcw 21:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

American Legion riders

http://www.thevistaonline.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/11/10/43736dea190d6 http://www.greeleytrib.com/article/2005111120076 http://www.godistheterrorist.com/ http://www.godhatesfags.com/fliers/nov2005/20051111_god-hates-vets.pdfhttp://timesunion.com/AspStories/st


Other Prejudices

I removed the Other Prejudices section. First of all, it claimed that the WBC espouses racism, which it does not. Secondly, it linked to the extremely crappy wikipedia article, Racial_and_political_views_of_the_Westboro_Baptist_Church. It seems that people are so incensed with the WBC that they want to accuse them of everything under the sun. They're against gays, catholics, jews, etc etc, so they must hate blacks too, right? Well, as far as I can tell, no. They openly preach against racism, in fact. The accusations of racism against them boil down to personal accusations against Fred Phelps from decades ago, and claims that they are being subtly racist in their attacks on gays and others who happen to be black. Given that the WBC does everything it can to preach its views in as offensive and provocative way as possible, I find it to be hard to believe that it also has racist views which it is keeping secret. Until the day they wave signs saying "God hates niggers", or until you can come up with some real evidence of racist beliefs on their part, stop accusing them of this. --Xyzzyplugh 15:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The crappy article, Racial_and_political_views_of_the_Westboro_Baptist_Church, lists numerous instances of racist language and behavior. -Willmcw 17:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I just read it again. It contained one >accusation< of recent racist language by Fred Phelps, and various other claims of anti-black attitudes by Fred Phelps from 30 or 40 years ago. Whether Fred Phelps was a racist 30 years ago is irrelevant, as he and his church currently preach against racism. The only relevant and verifiable claims are those that say the WBC is revealing subtle racist attitudes, by using images of gorillas at times in their fliers attacking black opponents, etc.
Even this is taken out of context, as we'd need to check to see if they're attacking people of all races in just as offensive ways, but let's assume this does reveal subtle racist feelings or attitudes in Phelps and whoever else is running the church. This still doesn't mean that the WBC >espouses< racism, as the current WBC article claims. If I preach against racism, but have some racist feelings which inadvertently come out at times in subtle ways, can I really be claimed to espouse racism?
I'm no defender of the WBC, I think they're a cult headed by a lunatic, but that doesn't mean wikipedia articles about them should be anti-WBC propaganda accusing them of everything possible. Tell me why the current Other Prejudices section is accurate and appropriate in its current form. --Xyzzyplugh 20:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Using images of gorillas in flyers about blacks is not subtle racism. It's flagrant racism. If they do that while supposedly condemning racism that just shows they are hypocrites. The fact that the racism is in the form of images rahter than words makes little difference - it's still "speech". And the incidents are not all from 30 years ago. At least one is from 12 years ago. Further the section in question also mentions prejudices against other religions, which you don't deal with. If you want to say that they also claim to be anti-racist, and have a source for it, then that would be NPOV.-Willmcw 19:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I've rewritten the Other Prejudices section, taking into consideration what you said above. I'm not sure if the footnote I was trying to use worked properly, it seems to be pointing to the wrong one. --Xyzzyplugh 23:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that's good. I tweaked it slightly to match the wording in the source. Thanks, -Willmcw 23:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Violence against Westboro

I was at the funeral of Sergeant Wendling on Oct 5, 2005, which a few members of this church came to "protest." I can verify that any claims about the protestors being physically harmed are completely false. A sheriff approached them and asked them to move, both out of respect for the funeral ceremony and concern for their own safety, as they were standing on the shoulder of a highway. I deleted that point from the "Violence against Westboro" section and I trust no one will add it back.

Unfortunately, this violates the rule about no original research. If you have sources to cite, it may be acceptable to remove it, but we cannot just accept your word. Moreover, as long as WBC is claiming that this happens, it's worth having it there, even if it's just alleged. Plus, your removal was incomplete as you left the reference at the bottom of the page. I'm going to revert this. If you can point out a few sources that verify there was no violence, it would be worth citing them in addition to the bullet point about this incident, but removal of it is not OK. Thanks! --Flata 02:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Your point about original research is valid- ok, fine. But there are other reasons why this bullet point does not belong on Wikipedia, and certainly not in the context in which it is placed. First of all, the section is titled "Violence against Westboro" NOT "Alleged Violence against Westboro." The heading under the title says that that "(members of Westboro) themselves have been victims of attacks." This infers that these people were victims of an attack at the funeral, which although they claim to be, they in fact were not. If you want to create a separate section about all the allegations this group makes about people attacking them and put this bullet point in there, that might be okay. But in its present context it is entirely inappropriate and perpetuates a slander against the law enforcement officer discussed here.
As to citing other sources, I am in an unfair position because since no such physical attack happened, none of the local newspapers who covered the story wrote anything about it, therefore I couldn't find any sources to link to. The omission of this incident from all the news stories should surely be enough proof that it never happened, since a situation where a county sheriff punched anyone in the face in front of literally hundreds of eyewitnesses that would certainly be a news-worthy event. A few days or weeks later, the Westboro people put a false version of the events on their website. I am so offended by this group that I haven't and won't access any of their websites, but there is no reason to accept them as a legitimate source for anything except their own views and statements, NOT for factual references. They even got the name of the city wrong- there is no such place as Mayfield, Wisconsin. Do you think the fact that these people posted this allegation on a website makes it deserving of being put on Wikipedia? These people make lots of ridiculous claims, we don't need to write about them in detail. The link to their website is there, so anybody who wants to read about them further can click on the link and do so, although having seen these evil people in action I hope no one would.
At this point I won't blank the bullet point outright, but if you can't figure out a more appropriate context to put it in and edit it so as to leave no doubt that such an incident never happened, then I will have to. Wikipedia will be one of the first sources of information for people looking for information about this group and the specific incident of Sgt. Wendling's funeral, and we need to make sure it contains the truth, not poison and slander.
No, you *won't* have to blank it. The best thing for you to do is to add to the text that is already there, to note that this is an alleged incident, with no confirmation outside of what WBC said. The onus is on you, as an editor, to do the best you can to improve Wikipedia, but you can't do that by removing information outright if one side claims it to be the case. The point of WP:NPOV is that we should include things which are disputed, denied by the other side, whatever. If there's an official denial, add that as that would count for a lot. Look at how the rest of the article is organized. A lot of stuff is very one-sided from WBC - you certainly know how they are - and it does us no good to be equally one-sided in ignoring what they put out. We should document the alleged facts, since we cannot prove things one way or the other, but it makes sense to note what other factors there are, such as an official denial, if there is one. Blanking it would be an irresponsible and inappropriate way to deal with disputed material. Dispute it with facts, not original research or your own POV. If you want to make it contain the truth, the best thing to do is to put up both sides here. Otherwise, someone will only ever get WBC's side, since that is all they will find elsewhere on the Internet. Putting both sides here, and putting it into an objective perspective makes it easier for people to say "wow, that's a bunch of bullshit." And please, in the future, do not issue ultimatums. --juli. t ? 11:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
The big issue I have with what's currently up there is that it might give the impression that their story is more than an allegation because it's in a section called "Violence against Westboro" that discusess how "they (WBC) themselves have been victims of attacks." Shouldn't it belong in a section called "Alleged Violence against Westboro" or something like that? Or how about editing the sentence below to say "they claim to have been members of attacks" ? I guess that would create another problem because some of the other bullet points above it might be legitimate stories. (So I don't want a bogus unconfirmed allegation in the same section with some that have been confirmed.) Point is, this particular bullet point does not belong in this context.
Later today I'll post some links to news stories about the funeral that mention the picket, and do not contain any confirmation about someone getting punched in the face. You're right that an official denial would count for a lot, but the sheriff's office never issued any kind of official statement because they didn't take these people seriously. Since no one else did either there was no need to make such a statement. You make good points about the need to not be one sided since that would just be acting like these crazies, and i'm sorry if i gave the impression that i gave an ultimatum... i just wanted to give the other guys a chance to edit it in a more appropriate way. I'm not a wikipedia member, just somebody who wants to see the record set straight.
Here is a good link from a Milwaukee newspaper that covers this group's actions at the funeral and does not confirm their story. Unfortunately they couldn't reach the sheriff for comment so he could officially deny this.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/jan06/383433.asp
The best thing I can suggest is to rewrite the current paragraph to make it clear that it is an alleged incident, and that there are no reports of violence outside of WBC themselves. It should be fairly simple as I think the paragraph in question is relatively short. Leve the bullet point where it is, I think it makes sense to put it there, just make it clear that this particular incident is alleged and that there is no outside confirmation other than accusations by the WBC. I understand your concern, and hope that we can get text in this article that makes more sense, in line with what really happened (which I am inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt on.) --juli. t ? 22:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, it's a shame that there hasn't been more violence against WBC. Constitutional or not, they should all be sent off to Siberia and left there to starve/freeze to death!

Merged Article Into This One

As per this decision: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Racial_and_political_views_of_the_Westboro_Baptist_Church I have done a crappy half assed job of merging the above article into this one. The Other Prejudices section where I put it now sucks, and should be rewritten in my opinion. But at least it's merged. --Xyzzyplugh 21:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Other Prejudices

I've just marked the Other Prejudices section as subject to an NPOV dispute. This content was largely merged from the former article Racial and political views of the Westboro Baptist Church. To see some editors' concerns about the former article, read the debate on Articles for Deletion.

I removed the Anti-asian Prejudice section entirely as it was especially bad. There was no documentation of the claim of anti-asian prejudice, and the one quote used wasn't even an example of anti-asian prejudice, but rather an attack on american businessmen. I've seen no evidence of anti-asian prejudice anywhere coming from the WBC. They criticize asian nations, certainly, but then they similarly claim "god hates canada", "Sweden is a land of sodomy, bestiality, and incest", and so on. --Xyzzyplugh 20:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
And I've now removed the anti-black prejudice section entirely. Most of its claims were unsourced, and those that had a source were mostly referring to an unpublished manuscript which was apparently made part of a court case and has now been posted onto a website. I don't find this to be enough of a credible source to base this section on. Some parts of this section were also redundant to the beginning of the Other Prejudices section. The one useful link, to ADL's page on the WBC's quotes on blacks, I moved up a few paragraphs to the beginning of the other prejudices section. If anyone thinks this article needs more on anti-black prejudice, I suggest writing something yourself from scratch rather than just reverting back to this low quality material. --Xyzzyplugh 15:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

flyers

I found this link and I thought maybe wikipedia could use it to demonstrate conclusively but NPOV-ly the kinds of messages that godhatesfags.com tries to convey. http://www.godhatesfags.com/fliers/flierarchive2001.html The source is godhatesfags.com so it's hard to discount the source as biased agains godhatesfags.com. MPS 05:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add it to the article's list of links, if you like. Though there are already a number of links to various godhatesfags webpages. It's not difficult to determine their views and messages, they display them as prominently as they possibly can. --Xyzzyplugh 22:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Evident vandilism

I noticed that one of the redirections leading to the Westboro Baptist Church page was godhatesfags.com. A redirection which was hastily abolished. Any oppositions? Salluste 22:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the anti-black section?

I do recall there being one, but it appears to be have been removed. I know it was mentioned in Addicted To Hate, though.

Strange...

Me and my friend we're joing around, and he said he sometimes wondered what would happen if the Site was called 'Allahhatesfags'. I thought the idea was funny, and typed it into the address bar to see if someone had already seized on this humourous potential...

Surprise! It's a redirect to GHF! T ConX 03:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Not any more. Daniel (☎) 22:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Missouri

I added the section about the recent "no-show" in Missouri. Even though Missouri passed a law prohibiting protesting at funerals (aimed at the group), it apperntly was also decided using their children in protest constitued child endangerment, grounds for arrest and putting their children in foster homes. 68.89.218.230 23:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Phelps racist?

Don't get me wrong, I'm about as liberal as they come, so don't take this as defending Phelps uphauling views (its so ridiculous it would be funny if it wasn't such a close caricature to how many people actually think but express more mildly--"oh there's that psychotic family again", unfortunately I find myself seeing that same psychotic streak in more influential conservatives). But I seem to recall reading, a long time ago so I don't remember the source but it seemed legitimate, that Phelps was actually involved in the civil rights movement, and even marched with MLK at one time. It stuck in my memory because it seems so ironic. The sections that accuse him of being a racist are unsourced, and although I'm no Phelps expert, he doesn't seem to take any public racist views. Its an easy to assume a homophobe is racist, they come from the same sort of thought process, but I don't think Phelps is actually a racist. I was looking for some sources about his involvement in the civil rights movement. I havn't found any yet, but I did find some quotes that seem to indicate that he isn't a white-supremacist atleast, ironically a quote in which he is critisizing Corretta Scott King (who's funeral the WBC picketed because she supported same-sex marriage):

Coretta didn't just let the fags detour the Freedom Train through Sodom. She stopped, kicked the righteous black civil rights leaders off the train, drove it out to San Francisco to pick up every filthy flame queen she could find, and then demanded that everyone bow down at the fag altar and treat fags as though they have been mistreated the way blacks have been. Get a clue! Fags choose to eat each other's feces and drink each other's semen. Black people don't choose to be black! Jesus said that if your right eye offends you, pluck it out (Matthew 5:29)! That means if you can't stop being a fag, castrate yourself! He doesn't call being black a sin!!!

If you read between the lines of hate filled rhetoric, the quote seems to indicate that he has nothing against African Americans. --Brentt 19:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

We don't state that he is racist. We say this:
It is not disputed that he has been accused of racist acts, which is what we say. -Will Beback 21:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Fred Phelps-John Rankin debate

The debate should be discussed either here or on the article of John C. Rankin.


I think this should be added to the article

I didn't see a mention of the "Patriot Guard Riders" that try to go everywhere Phelps goes to counter their protest and protect the families of the dead soldiers.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/06/btsc.lavandrera.funerals/index.html

Changes...

Critic at Arms: I'd never heard of Rick Ross, but checking his Wikipedia page doesn't show any sign of the one-phrase description of him being an anti-religious bigot. I mean, lots of people have been accused of that; would you introduce Thomas Jefferson as "Many opposed Alexander Hamilton, including the deist Thomas Jefferson" or "including the Anti-Federalist Thomas Jefferson?" It's both more accurate, and more relevant to the topic at hand.

Rick Ross is not as extremist and narrow in his views as Phelps, but he is certainly not in the Christian mainstream. He is known to be an anti-every-religion-but-his bigot and an opportunist. Like Phelps, he has his claims of "persecution" when his true history is brought to light (felony conviction as a thief and his involvement with the Waco mess). Those who are familiar with Ross are either his supporters or they will see him as a suitable yardstick by which to measure Phelps and his followers -- Ross is, say, 6 miles out, while Phelps is 10 miles out, and even Ross sees Phelps as extreme. -- Critic-at-Arms 19 APR 06

Juli, as for the news story discussed above on talk in January: Yes, yes, no original research, but this is a little ridiculous. If WBC blindly asserted that a horde of slavering homosexuals attacked their church and they bravely fought them off, would that be worth of a slot in the Violence against WBC section? I still say it's better to cut this down drastically or delete it, but I tried to make it even more clear in a NPOV way that any reasonably objective standard says that this is fantasy. SnowFire 18:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Identity

As I said on the Phelps page (although I did not write much of this article), I am adding "Alleged" to the Hockenbarger's status with Identity until a 100% reliable source can be cited.70.241.29.250 06:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

POV, Contradiction

Can the people who added the POV and Contradiction templates explain which parts of the article they consider to exhibit these problems? TSP 16:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that certain statements in the article are is desperate need of citation. Specifically: 1. the "Jews Killed Christ" ideology 2. that the "vast majority" comdemn WBC's methods (the citation references only the SBC)

I am not asserting that these statements are untrue. I am simply saying they need citation.

Racist question

Above there were questions as to whether Phelps is racist. I think this needs to be revisited as the article now explicitly states that this church is racist. Note that while the church has "racialized" beliefs, I don't know that they are explicitly "racist". It's a touchy subject, obviously, but the only reason I bring it up was because they were added as an example of a racist church on Religious attitudes to racism. I removed them from that article as I don't think that the accusation is technically correct. Phelps seems more interested in gay-bashing anyway. --ScienceApologist 21:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the text in question (the beginning of the Other Prejudices section) to the text it contained from months ago. Someone added a few words to a sentence to reverse its meaning, I've put it back. --Xyzzyplugh 13:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

White nationalistm?

I'm a bit confused by the article's description of the WBC as a white nationalist group. Although Phelps has used racial slurs, he seems to have used them more in an attempt to offend the individuals he was insulting rather than as an attack on any racial group. For example, if he's insulting some who is fat, he will call him a "fat faggot" but that doesn't make him anti-fat. Phelps insults anyone who is not sufficiently homophobic and if the person he's attacking happens to be black or fat or whatever, Phelps will use that fact as another weapon at his disposal. I suggest that the allegations of the WBC being white nationalists be removed from the article (although the part about him using racial slurs should stay). Edrigu 17:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the phrase "white nationalism" with "racism", as I can find no evidence that anyone has accused the wbc of being white nationalist, nor do they themselves claim to be. I used "racism" instead because the anti-defamation league has indeed accused the wbc of being racist. --Xyzzyplugh 13:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism

"It is also monitored as a domestic terror group by the U.S. Department of State [citation needed]."

Please can someone supply a reference or otherwise I would like to remove this sentence. AndrewRT 18:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

None provided thereore I'll remove the statement in line with the policy WP:V which states Any edit lacking a source may be removed AndrewRT 21:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the State Department monitors "domestic terror groups" anyway.
The claim is back up, and still unsourced. It seems like there is consensus to delete it, so I'll be doing that now. --Natalie 19:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Article length

This article is over twice as large as Wikipedia recommends. It's in need of a serious pruning. CovenantD 18:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely. My suggestions:
  1. Strip out the unsourced material which appears to be Original Research
  2. Take out the info about Christian Identity which belongs in that article.
  3. Delete the quotes which are excessive
  4. Personal info can be moved to Fred Phelps
  5. If the article is still too long split into sub articles on, e.g. Acts of Divine vengeance claimed by the Westboro Baptist Church

AndrewRT 20:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. CovenantD 15:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

copyvio link and bogus legal advise

Regarding my edits: as discussed at Talk:Fred Phelps Addicted To Hate is a likely copyright violation on the site we linked to. WP:EL says we should not link to such sites. We can (obviously) link to copyrighted material, but not if we beleive the site is an unauthorized user of the material. I left in all the information, and the citations. Anybody can still find it in Google. Also, I removed the baseless claim the book is in the public domain because it was submitted to a court. Enormous amounts of copyrighted material are submitted to courts as evidence, and don't enter the public domain (they maintain their copyright). We should not give our readers bogus legal advise which encourages them to break the law by violating somebody's copyright. --Rob 05:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The Hockenbargers leaving Westboro

This is about as likely as Spike Lee bleaching his skin. Either I see a source or it gets deleted and remains so.209.169.114.213 04:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Should we label them a hate group?

I get the feeling this is going against NPOV. Unless they have stated they are a hate group, I think it is biased to say they are. We can (and should) say that many groups have labeled them as a hate group (and say some of the major groups that have said this), but we shouldn't label them as a hate group ourselves. Any objections to me changing it? The Ungovernable Force 05:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Time for a reality check. They say God hates fags, they say they're with God, so they say they're a hate group. - Outerlimits 07:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
It should be left in. We can't rely on self-labeling on an issue like "hate group." CovenantD 14:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
If the ADL say they are, we can also. Just make sure it is clear that it is not us saying so. —Daniel (‽) 14:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
"Hate group" is not a well-defined or uncontroversial term; and, of course, some (including the church itself) would dispute the label. Under the neutral point of view and verifiability policies, we need to say who considers them a hate group, and let readers decide whether to take their word for it. It is not acceptable to simply label them. TSP 15:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, it's just like with the word terrorist IMO. We should say who says they are and let people decide. I personally think they are, in fact I'd call them nazis if I ever met them on the street, but I don't think it's neutral for us to give them the label unless they have directly claimed it. The Ungovernable Force 19:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
No, it's exactly like not saying Meryl Streep is a woman because someone might claim otherwise. The purpose of NPOV is to depict reality accurately by ensuring that all significant viewpoints are represented. You haven't identified any significant person or group with the view that they are not a hate group (not surprising, since it is directly observable that they are, and that they do not eschew the word "hate" in their placards or web-site URLs). Don't distort reality by pretending that anyone whose opinion matters, or any neutral observer, could fairly state that they are not a hate group. - Outerlimits 21:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Calling them a hate group doesn't convey any information to the reader beyond "I don't like them." To start the article off this way gives it a tone that makes it hard to take anything in it seriously. You might as well start off, "Westboro Baptist Church, a group of known poopyheads..." Kauffner 17:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
What I'm proposing wouldn't make much of a difference in that respect, since I do believe it should make clear that the people who label hate groups have labelled Westboro as a hategroup. I'm just saying we should say who has called them that. The Ungovernable Force 22:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


I have removed the term "hate group" from the intro, and replaced it with "organization". The WBC claims that while "god hates fags", they themselves do not. They claim that the bible tells them to love sinners, and that their preaching is their form of love. I can find and provide sources for this, if need be. "hate group" is a POV term. --Xyzzyplugh 07:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That's the biggest lie ever "hate the sin, love the sinner". Why is it when I protested at an anti-gay church yesterday that used the same rhetoric, they threatened to kill my friends and me for being "fags" (even though several of us weren't). I don't know how they define love, but that sure ain't it! That's just like how the National Alliance claims it doesn't hate others, they're just really proud of being white (yet they spend all their time talking about how great it is to see blacks, jews, queers, mexicans etc die). The Ungovernable Force 07:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I to have say this way is much better (with "hate group" taken out of the first sentence). Controversial opinion should be attributed to someone, not given as the opinion of WP. Kauffner 08:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Whether they really do hate gay people or not is not the issue, as far as the introduction goes. We need this article to be NPOV, regardless of the fact that this church is a group of wackos that hates everyone.--Xyzzyplugh 12:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Are you objecting to the current version then, which doesn't call them a hate group, but only says who does? The Ungovernable Force 19:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
They are Christian extremists. "Hate group" has too many tangential connotations. Their purpose is faith (however convoluted), the "hate" part is secondary (and certainly not NPOV).

Improving the article

The article isn't quite as good as the one for Phelps himself just by reading it. I want to start improving it, maybe to the point that it is as good as a featured article, but not being very handy with Wikipedia I'm looking for suggestions on how to improve it.

I'd suggest that the main problem is that it's full of hearsay and speculation. The article needs a good trimming. The swimming pool section is a good example of something that should either be removed or trimmed to a single sentence. --Tony Sidaway 09:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

---Good point. There has been a good amount of (unreasonable) complaints on the Phelps article, but it's very well researched and has more than enough citations, as well as being as neutral as possible. I think a good start would be to comb through the entire article's claims.

Regarding the pool section, I recently located the compound on Google Earth via the address that WBC uses on their fliers. Apparently, the pool is still there as of 2006 when the satellite photograph was taken.

September 11

After the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks, Phelps' group went to New York City to protest the rescue efforts going on there, mocking victims as they were taken from the rubble, shouting obscenities at rescue workers and demanding that those still alive be left to die.

What's the source for this? I far as I recall, very few victims were recovered from the WTC site after the first 24 hours or so. Meanwhile, passenger air traffic was shut down for several days. Did they drive from Kansas? That'd take more than 24 hours, I think. Mocking the victims? If this means mocking them face-to-face, it strikes me as unlikely. The WTC site is huge. Each building had a footprint of 1 acre, so the piles of rubble must have extended over many acres. I don't see how protesters could single out individual rescue attempts. For that matter, wasn't much of Lower Manhatten evacuated for the first few days after the attacks? I'm pretty sure the pictures you see of crowds at Ground Zero were taken during the clearing-up of the rubble, which took several months.

I suspect some of most of this section is fantasy or Internet rumour. If proper sourcing isn't forthcoming, I will delete it in 24 hours.--CJGB (Chris) 16:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Searching the Ogrish site, I don't see any claim about Phelps producing the video; in any case, Ogrish is not a Reliable Source, and Wikipedia is not a rumour-monger. According to his site, Phelps did write some "hymns" mentioning 9-11, as claimed. I don't see any evidence that he recorded them for release, though that seems plausible. Any cites?--CJGB (Chris) 17:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've trimmed the section back to a few documented or reasonably plausible assertions. It seems to me that a few other section of this article could use a similar purge, but I'm not intending to do it myself.--CJGB (Chris) 16:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

External links cleanup

I went through the external links section and did some cleaning up according to the guidelines at Wikipedia:External links. Most of my changes were similar to those made at a cleanup I just did at Fred Phelps; rather than retype my rationale, you can read my note at Talk:Fred Phelps here.

For the editors who read here before adding new links — and thank you for checking the discussion page first — please make sure that they add something new, unique and significant that is not already covered by the other links. There are a TON of pages critiquing the WBC, a TON of interviews and news articles, and a TON of parody sites. Is the new link going to add something essential to this encyclopedic article that isn't already here? Could you instead add said content and use your link as a reference? Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 22:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Pro-christian POV

I'm not sure I understand where this article is going. The Phelps article reads as a character assassination. This one reads as a satirical and ironical expose of the WBC's tenets. At no point, in either article, is it pointed out that the beliefs of Phelps and the tenets of his church have at least the virtues of honesty and logical progression.

The christian god, as attested by the christians' bible, does hate fags -- if "fags" is taken to mean those people who actually _do_ have, and intend to continue having, homosexual sex. Such people are, to quote the troubled Leviticus, an "abomination". It can hardly be thought, in the majority christian worldview, that they will _not_ go to "hell".

Most US christians _do_ believe that a place called Sodom was destroyed by their god because some of the inhabitants of that place were "doing" homosexual sex, and because the state did not intervene to stop them. The late Roman and mediaeval state prespcriptions against homosex, and all prescriptions afterwards in the christian world (including the US ones) were premised on the truth of this story, and on the fear this story engendered. Why is it now considered bizarre that Phelps and his church should believe what all christians until very recently believed -- and which, indeed, most American christians still believe if they pay any credence to the Sodom story at all -- that the state is necessarily endangered if it allows homosex to “happen” or does not actively through its laws seek to thwart any homosexual enjoyment?

Phelps takes the usual christian argument in America to its logical conclusion: gays will go to hell, any state that does not condemn gays will be destroyed.

It is true, of course, that Phelps and his church are nasty in their methods. And this must be pointed out in the article. But their arguments are no different from the usual arguments of most American christians. I would therefore maintain that the POV in the article is very much slanted against the WBC – unnecessarily and unusually for an article on which christians presumably will have worked as editors.--MacMurrough 01:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that the WBC's "arguments are no different from the usual arguments of most American christians." Their theology is unique in nature — for starters, many, many Christian denominations disagree that homosexuality is a sin, so to say, and even among those that oppose it, the WBC is distinctive in both theology and, as you've noted, practice.
However, if you're picking up a bias here, which wouldn't be surprising giving the subject of the article, bring up some specifics to go over. Is there something described which isn't factual? Or is only part of the story being told? If either is true, then it's worth fixing. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 01:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tijuana, I think the first two paragraphs would be better, less contoversial, if put like this:

Westboro Baptist Church is a Christian religous group based in Topeka, Kansas, headed by Fred Waldron Phelps, Sr. It runs godhatesfags.com and other websites expressing its condemnation of homosexuals, Catholics, and various other groups. The organization is monitored as a hate group by the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center.[1]

The group bases much of its work around the belief that "God hates fags" (its best known slogan and the address of its primary website)

I would suggest here that "God hates fags" should become a link to www.godhatesfags.com (without the full domain name, it's rather odd in this sentence mentioning the website.)

and expresses the opinion, based on its Biblical exegesis, that all recent tragedies that have befallen America are due to that country's attitude to homosexuality (specifically its increasing social tolerance and acceptance of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people). The church believes God hates homosexuals above all other kinds of "sinners".[3] In addition to its anti-homosexual stance, the organization also possesses a strong racist, anti-Catholic, and anti-semitic stance, picketing Holocaust Memorials in an attempt to downplay the severity of that event, and holding the belief that "Jews killed Christ". It also proclaims an anti-American stance, though only to the extent that America (God's chosen country [ref: www.godhatesamerica.com]) has thwarted God's purpose through the liberalization of its anti-gay laws.

The point really is to get across what the church is thinking itself, as well as what the rest of the world thinks about it. But I don't wish to start editing without any discussion, because I can see how much work has gone into the article already. --MacMurrough 02:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to move the "Theology" section uppermost after the introduction. It seems ridiculous to go from Intro to "Compound" -- rather like in an article on the Roman Catholic Church having the first sub-heading on the Vatican. And "Compound" sounds rather slanted to me: should we not rather use the term "church grounds"? Intro, theology, purpose (if that makes any sense -- is there a wiki subheading about purpose for any other christian denomination?) ... and then we might come to composition, if indeed that itself makes sense.) --MacMurrough 23:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of these changes sound fine to me. I would support them. Let's wait a couple more days to see if anyone else comments on your proposal. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 01:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, since it's been nearly six days, I'd say go ahead and make the changes. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 01:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

50% plus citations are missing

I've added a lot of [citation needed] to this article because its an unholy mess and needs editing by a competent editor. It's difficult to work out where the article on WBC ends and Fred Phelps begins.

You'd think with all of the claims made about WBC that each one would be referenced properly - and you'd be wrong because this is Wikipedia. And no, it isn't my responsibility to find those citations, it's the responsibility of the editors when they insert new allegations about WBC that they cite where those allegations came from. --86.131.86.10 11:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

First Sentence

Today, as it stands, the first sentence of the intro of this article reads: "Westboro Baptist Church is a religous group based in Topeka, Kansas, headed by Fred Waldron Phelps, Sr."

"Religious group" is regularly edited to "hate-group". "religious cult" or to other definitions. Can we just talk about our reasoning behind these changes here first? I agree that it is a hate group, and that it is a cult. And I agree that these definitions, with supporting references, must come high up in the introduction. But is it truly in the best spirit of Wikipedia, or of human intercourse, to denounce when we're supposed to describe? There are some "facts" about Westboro B Church, and they can be written neutrally this way:

Westboro Baptist Church is a Christian grouping based in Topeka, Kansas, headed by its minister, Fred Waldron Phelps, Sr. The church, whose membership does not exceed 100, is known for running the website, www.godhatesfags.com and other websites expressing condemnation of homosexuals, Catholics, and various other groups. The church is monitored as a hate group by the Anti-Defamation League and by the Southern Poverty Law Center.[1]

This is my understanding of the situation (and I am not American). The WBC bases its hatred on its Christian principles, therefore its being a Christian group should come foremost. Phelps is not just some self-called leader, he is an ordained Baptist minister: therefore this should be cited clearly. The rest follows.

I will change nothing on the page at this point, but I would argue that when changes are made, they should be explained on this discussion page. If you change something, you must want that change to stick. Unless you argue for that change here, it will not remain, because no consensus will have been gained. If you believe truly in your point of view, you must believe that others can be persuaded to it. Otherwise it is a mere solipsism. MacMurrough 01:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Where'd that article go...

That listed everyone who were known members of Westboro? It was really useful, did it get AFD'd?Dev920 23:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Running costs.

These people travel all over the US, constantly, they run a billion websites, must have more technology than Bill Gates in terms of video cameras, cameras, software, etc, and run a massive church which is lit up 24/7. How can these people afford it? How can any of them, given what they do in their spare time, hold down a job? 5 are members of Phelps-chartered, yes, but 1)Who employs them and 2) How can 5 people support a hundred? This is what I just don't understand about WBC... Dev920 00:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Westboro makes its money through frivilous lawsuits.

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.