Talk:Westboro Baptist Church/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk archives for Westboro Baptist Church (current talk page)
<< 1 < Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 > 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

Quick Edit

In the Media Coverage section, the word "primer" is supposed to be "premier." Whoever has access, please change this. It's bugging the hell out of me.

Allegations of racism section removed

I removed the allegations of racism section. Parts were unsourced, and most of it was based on a source which is simply not reliable, the unpublished manuscript "addicted to hate". "Addicted to hate" is a manuscript which exists on a website, which claims to have been previously entered into evidence in a court case. There is no verification of this, and no way of knowing if anything in the manuscript is true. An unpublished manuscript is not a remotely reliable source. The purpose of this article is not to think of every bad thing we can possibly say about the WBC, so please don't put any of this content back without reliable sources on it. --Xyzzyplugh 14:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

And I have now removed a bunch more unsourced content and content based on the utterly unreliable source "Addicted to Hate". This content removed per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. WP:V says, "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be challenged by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it". --Xyzzyplugh 23:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Argggghhh. I'm not going to get into a revert war with you, but I have to say, I think you're wrong. Rick Boatright 00:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Why did you remove those porrtions of the racism section which WERE referenced? (Photos of wbc pickets, cites to wbc web sites, etc.? Rick Boatright 16:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. This editor removes citations that are beyond what s/he has explained here, such as this one. Restoring again. CovenantD 17:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to the talk page. There are a number of sections I have been removing, and I will list each of them here, so they can be discussed seperately. If you disagree with just one of them, as you apparently did above, do not revert all my changes, but rather replace the individual sections you believe are sourced. The following are a list of the sections I am removing, with my reasons for removal:
  • "There is absolutely no salvation outside of Westboro Baptist Church. Therefore, it is a sin to offer any type of aid or support to anybody or any human institution in the world except for WBC". This is unsourced.
  • "Westboro holds a vision of the apocalypse which is unique to their theology and based heavily on point #6 above, that when the end of the world comes, all the souls of men and women will be brought into a celestial courtroom with God presiding as judge. Westboro envisions the souls of humanity (aside from themselves, who in their view are the only elect of God) as being reduced, in their own words, to "sobbing little girls knowing and getting what they deserve". God will then call forward his "expert witnesses" — Westboro's congregants — to testify against the sins of all humanity and thereby be instrumental in getting the souls of all mankind (save for themselves) cast into Hell. [1] This source does not justify the above. It doesn't justify the "unique" claim, and it only in part justifies the final sentence. The source claims that WBC will bear witness that catholics are blah blah blah, the text of the article goes far beyond that into original research.
  • "Phelps has been accused of preaching that black people were born of Ham, the son of Noah, as a punishment for ridiculing Noah and that black people are therefore the "servants of the servant" (meant to be subservient to God's people, i.e. Westboro).{ref|addicted} (Ironically, before his disbarment, Phelps was a civil rights attorney)" The source for this is the utterly unreliable and unusable "Addicted to Hate" manuscript.
  • "In the 1980s, Phelps was a regular guest on Scriptures for America, a program of Christian Identity teachings, hosted by Peter J. Peters. Tapes of Phelps' appearances on the show, as well as tapes of his regular sermons, are sold in Christian Identity mail-order catalogues.{ref_label|addicted|15|a}" Another section sourced by the unusable "Addicted to Hate".
  • "In a 1994 interview, WBC members Timothy and Jonathan Phelps (sons of Phelps Sr.) admitted to beating their wives and children as a means of discipline and "keeping them in line". (Phelps Sr. suggested this early in his ministry - see the Fred Phelps entry for details - and his estranged sons state that they, their siblings, and their mother were often victims of domestic violence)." This is unsourced.
This has been linked to a special printed by the Topeka Capitol-Journal, who have stated that they would refuse to print any and every detail of the Phelps and give them press (I believe this was around 2000). Despite the missing printings in the local paper, they decided to dedicate an information site regarding the Phelps, at the overwhelming request of the Topeka residents. In the case of "Addicted To Hate" which was somewhat sponsored by the paper, during the timeframe the article was being written, the TCJ has shifted leadership. The new leadership scrapped the publishing at the last minute, as to not "open a can of worms" and avoid legal troubles from the family. This is a reoccuring nightmare in Topeka, it's often claimed by locals that the city is quite literally "afraid of the Phelps family", due to their skills in court (I am a Kansas resident). Nonetheless, in 1994, they printed a very special section on the Phelps family, including testimonies from the two sons who departed from the family, Mark and Nate. I might add, this should not be stated as a fact (ie: Fred Phelps is a child abuser), but as an accusation (ie: In 1994, Mark and Nate Phelps claimed Fred Phelps, Sr had abused them as children).

Link:http://cjonline.com/webindepth/phelps/stories/080394_phelps02.shtml Link:http://cjonline.com/stories/072306/loc_phelps.shtml (Follow up, requires signup, link is reprinted elsewhere below) Link:http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4179/is_20060723/ai_n16666872 Kennethv 06:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  • "In spite of the group's insistence that it always follows through on its announced pickets, there have been innumerable instances in which no member of the church has ever arrived at an announced picket. Instead, in many instances fake 'epics' have been posted on the website. Those who write in to challenge WBC's claims that they were present at an event when they were not, are accused of blasphemy and told that they will go to Hell for daring to question WBC." This is unsourced.
  • The first 3 paragraphs of the Criminal Record section, which I'm not reproducing here because of their length (they begin with "The arrest record for members of Westboro dates back to 1951"), are all sourced from the unusable "Addicted to Hate" source.
  • "In the 2000s, Fred Phelps Jr. was convicted of misdemeanor assault for shouting an obscene phrase at a woman stopped at a red light during a picket. He was arrested in 2004 for possession of marijuana, but no charges were pressed." This is unsourced.
  • The Violence against Westboro section begins with, "Though the group has practiced violence in the past, they themselves have also been the victims of attacks:". This is simply not NPOV or objective, and has no place in what could hopefully be a quality article.
  • From the Claiming devine vengeance section, I removed the phrase "conspiracy theory" from the middle of a sentence, it is similarly POV and not objective. Wikipedia can't call groups hate groups or cults, call their beliefs conspiracy theories, as these are all loaded terms and not objective.
  • "WBC issued a dubious claim of having picketed in Stockholm on September 5 2005, reporting their alleged protest in one of their "Epics" posted at their website.{ref|wbc-sv-epic} Despite claiming to have given numerous interviews in the Swedish media - and even holding a press conference - there is no evidence that anyone from WBC was ever present in Sweden." POV and original research.
  • The Allegations of Racism section begins with some highly POV text, "A sampling of Westboro's negative views on blacks is available courtesy of the Anti-Defamation League", and later goes on with some more POV text, "Further evidence to support Phelps and Westboro's racism is...". I have been removing this entirely as it was badly POV, but I'll leave the links in place with a bit of NPOV text around it, since the links are reasonable.
  • I have removed most of the rest of the Allegations of racism section, too long to cut and paste here, as it was unsourced or sourced from the unusable "Addicted to Hate". --Xyzzyplugh 21:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Other Christian groups

In the last paragraph of the introduction, it says "Not only is Westboro opposed by supporters of gay rights, but the vast majority of Christian groups (even those who agree with Westboro that homosexuality is a sin) oppose Westboro's theology and practice, believing it to be incompatible with authentic Christian teachings."

The majority of Christian groups believe that homosexuality is a sin. Believing it is a sin doesn't mean they hate gays though, only that they hate the sin. And only the most conservative groups would support "converting" homosexuals to heterosexuality. The statement in the parenthesis makes it seem as though it is expected that other Christian groups would also hate gay people because they believe it is a sin. I think it should be removed (the sentence in the parenthesis, not the entire paragraph). 71.31.151.237 21:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, it doesn't seem that way to me. The sentence as written, to me, seems to be saying exactly what it is trying to say, that even fundamentalist christian groups which believe that homosexuality is a sin oppose WBC's theology and practice. --Xyzzyplugh 22:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the sentence sounds more like it is saying that it is somewhat of a surprise that they don't agree with them. But I can also see what you are talking about. Maybe we should change the "even" to "including"? 69.40.248.127 01:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see your point. "Including" does sound more neutral and objective. I'll let you make the change. --Xyzzyplugh 14:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Do most denominations really officially oppose homosexuality? Cite. BonniePrinceCharlie 22:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if the Bible is the main common source of doctrine for christian denominations and all the scriptures admitted into the bible were chosen based on mainstream orthodox doctrine, then you can cite Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:33, I Corinthians 6:9-10 etc. I think the onus is more on citing which denominations don't consider homosexuality a sin than those that do, as those that do are in the vast majority.
Since it's such a vast majority, perhaps you will do me the favor of citing them. 72.144.71.193 04:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
That's not to say that they hate homosexuals - the variance on the doctrine is usually that some denominations say "love the sinner, not the sinner", and others just plain hate the sinner. I hardly see how it can be refuted that homosexuality is considered a sin in general by christianity. 202.81.18.30 03:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Is heterosexuality a sin? The Bible has an awful lot of prohibitions on heterosexual relations, so by the same token, I suppose heterosexuality is a sin. Darn! 72.144.198.53 08:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Heterosexuality is not a sin, adultery is, whether it's of a homosexual or heterosexual nature. The Bible has claimed that homosexuality in and of itself is a sin. Nice try. 70.190.171.52 07:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Recreational sex is the "sin". Procreational sex, within the bounds of traditional marriage, is a sacrament. All homosexual activity is, by definition, recreational, and thus is "sinful". That's how traditional religion sees it. (I don't necessarily agree with that philosophy, but that's the explanation.) Wahkeenah 07:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
That's one view - you have no citation to show that that's the majority view. The Protestant denominations with which I am familiar are not opposed to recreational sex at all, citing some epistles where Paul instructs married couples to engage in intercourse regularly lest they be tempted. Therefore, your dichotomy cannot explain things, even if true, and it's not sourced to boot. You may have a prejudice regarding what Christians believe, and jumping from that prejudice to what "traditional religion" believes is not warranted. 72.144.198.53 00:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Fortunately, it's only the talk page, so I don't have to provide one. And everything conservative Christians have to say about recreational sex of any kind is damning. Wahkeenah 04:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
You don't have to provide a cite per wikipedia rules, only those of intelligent discourse. Bowing out so soon? And you don't know conservative Christians if you think that all conservative Christians are opposed to recreational sex. Do you think conservatives don't have fun, or what? When you demonize a group to such an extent that you can't attribute normal human behavior to them, you're far from the truth. I would suggest that as a matter of not embarassing yourself in a public forum, you find citations; otherwise, this discussion is not even appropriate for a talk page. It's unintentionally funny for someone to post on a talk page (which is intended, after all, to improve the quality of the article) and not be willing to back those comments up at all. If the world is solipsistic, then by all means, cite your own opinion. Otherwise, be willing to take some disagreement. 72.144.198.53 07:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Next thing you'll be telling me is that they don't believe in women submitting to men. Wahkeenah 07:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
And that the Catholic church opposes birth control pills just because of fears they could cause cancer. Wahkeenah 14:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Your use of the term "they" is pretty loaded with meaning. They are the Other, to be hated and feared, and certainly not to be understood. You have no factual basis for your views (mainstream Christianity thinks women should submit?!), so it's probably best you not comment on this. I am sure there are many subjects where your expertise is helpful, but this is not one of them. 72.144.198.53 22:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm telling what I've observed over the years. If you don't think Baptist is "mainstream", I don't know what to tell you. So it's probably best you not comment on what it's best for me to comment or not comment on. Wahkeenah 23:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, Baptists are only one of literally dozens of "mainstream" Protestant demoninations - and, of course, Catholics are mainstream themselves. To say that "mainstream Christianity" is whatever Baptists believe would thus be a massive fallacy. Furthermore, even the SBC does not claim that recreational sex is prohibited, so even your example falls flat on its face. I did research; you didn't. There's the difference, I suppose. Please stop embarassing yourself. 70.146.75.89 22:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I can give you a citation saying that recreational sex is sinful. Augustine of Hippo's De Bono Coniugali ("On the Good of Marriage") says that sexual intercourse with one's spouse that is not specifically for procreation is a Venial sin. Then and now, Augustine's was a minority opinion. Jhobson1 22:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Changes to intro

As per the Phelps article (edited this same session by me) I've highlighted that WBC is a christian denomination/church. Also, as it seems from Phelps' biography, that he is an ordained minister, I've put a Rev. before his name. I've removed the mention, in the second para of intro, to WBC being considered hyper-calvinist. This charge, if you follow the link, is to a debate, when in the heat of the argument, Phelps' adversary charges him with hyper-calvinism. Phelps may very well be hyper-anything-you-like, but for an encyclopaedia a more solid foundation of citation is required. I've changed "even those" in the third para to "including those" (as per recommendation above). But I've put the word "sin" into scare-quotes. I'm not sure in the context if sin is stated as fact or opinion. If as opinion then scare-quotes should go. (Would welcome input.) Also in third para, I'm not sure that it's true that WBC is Anti-American (at least not in the sense that that term is usually understood). Surely their behaviour, to their own thinking, is pro-American -- in that they wish to save America from some presumed possible catastrophe? MacMurrough 00:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC) edited to add header.

This article is not the place for speculation that WBC is "really" pro-American. They say God hates America, and that they stand with God. We should say what they say, not second-guess it. - Outerlimits 01:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
That is of course true. But the nature of their anti-Americanism is not simple. It is contingent on America's perceived support for homosexuals. This reason is not within the usual gamut of anti-Americanism. (After all, many people can be anti-homosexual and still pro-American. There seems something odd about the WBC that they can't balance that -- and this is what I think should be addressed.) They are not simply anti-American, so that a link to Anti-American would suffice. It's extraordinary, way out of the ordinary, for any supposedly religious group to make protestations at the funerals of returned US war-dead. The notation requires, in my view, some elaboration: eg, they're only anti-American in so far as America supports ... or in that America denies ... whatever (something inevitably to do with homosexuality). You know, I believe these people are wrong. But because I believe they are wrong, I also believe that the more truthful, more accurate, and the more unbiased this article can be, the more any reader will come to that same conclusion. So npov Wiki + me are together. MacMurrough 01:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I would be sure to say that they consider themselves anti-american, and not say that they are. And say why they consider themselves anti-american. A quote from Phelps or the church would be nice. And if we don't use a direct quote, then be sure to say something along the lines of "what they perceive as America's pro-gay bias" or something. Tell a queer that America is supportive of alternative sexualities and see if you don't get laughed at. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 01:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The fact that not all anti-Americans are alike hardly needs to be glossed here. The notation that would be most helpful to the reader would be to note that their thought processes are disordered, and their view of America and its armed forces as supportive of gays does not accord with reality. But Wikipedia can't make such judgments, and since the fact that their thought processes are disordered is so obvious that no external source is likely ever to say so in so many words, we remain unable to say it. To suggest that "they're only anti-American in so far as America supports gays" is wrong, naïvely suggesting that they understand their own motivations, and that their explanation of those motivations should be taken at face value. In fact, the WBC imputes support of gays to America so they can hate it. They will conceptualize anything they hate as supporting gays, regardless of the reality, in order that they may have theological support for their hatred. Thus God Hates America, God Hates Sweden, God Hates Fags, God Hates Canada, and Phelps loves the publicity that comes from speaking as if he could accurately divine what God hates. The WBC's God is a seething ball of hatred that originates in the pit of Fred Phelps's stomach, flees out his mouth, and brings back tributes in the guise of press clippings. It is the WBCs psychotic inability to accurately perceive reality, and an inability or unwillingness to bring their behavior into accord with that expected by most civil people, that underlies their bizarre qualities. But none of that belongs in a Wikipedia article. - Outerlimits 02:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I get all this. I'd do it myself but my broadband is off (and wbc has gone all video lately), but it used to be the case you could hit their site and find out immediately why they're anti-America. The quotes would all be there, the citation would be in your browser. Nobody's asking for an inference to be made. Only for them to damn themselves in their own words. They used to have pages and pages on why America was damned. Couldn't one of yez just go there and get the damned quote, plus citation (which would be the web address) and we'd all be happy. It would then be their words that they're anti-American, not ours, and we wouldn't have to discuss it at all. MacMurrough 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Edited to add, and why they hold that view. And then again [a further edit, in case anyone is watching] the place to look would be www.godhatesamerica.com, not gadhatesfags.com. MacMurrough 03:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean about WBC having gone all video lately, as I haven't checked their website in a while. However, if you want to find old versions of it, the internet archive will have plenty of old versions of their site. http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.godhatesfags.com --Xyzzyplugh 13:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Cult

is this "church" a cult?

No question about it.

Clinicaly probably not. One of the charactristics of a cult as defind by the people that study these things is that a cult has very active recruitment methods. They try their best to gather in new members and do extreme actions in order to get more people drawn in. As far as I know, this group is basicly all related to each other and don't express much intrest in gaining new members. There are also some things about information access that makes me think these guys do not fit the clinical demographic of a cult. 151.201.249.248 14:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I also don't think it fits the definition of a cult. A cult has certain defining characteristics. We can't just label every extreme, bizarre, or fringe group a cult.Tragic romance 02:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Cult.2C_sect —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patstuart (talk • contribs) 02:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
The word "cult" is a null. It is generally used as a means to incite, though the basic meaning is simply "a system of religious worship," which fits any and all churches, especially Christian churches. It's only the last several decades in which the term has had any psychological index at all. Critic-at-Arms 2 February 2007

From a sociological perspective it should actually be described as a "sect".



~ I am sorry all these people are doing is interpreting the word of god. They are a religion; christianity. Ofcourse this is very upsetting to modern christians who are much more liberal. But look at what they do- protest and make noise; they do not endanger life or attack people physically. This is very diffrent to how christians used to behanve and *other religions* still do

I will also suggest that these people carry very similar characteristics of cults, though not all.

Any particular reason "evil sons of bitches" redirects to here?

I don't care if you all hate this church. This is not NPOV. Inkbottle 22:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Yes, let me put that up for speedy deletion. Thanks. -Patstuart 22:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparently not the only one. I'm going through the redirects. -Patstuart 22:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That's kinda funny though...but yeah, probably shouldn't be here. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say?
I entirely agree(d) with it..... --Annon 8 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.106.221.56 (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
This was an accurate redirect, I hope that "church" catches on fire one day, and is RAZED into the ground with the twisted deamons that are a part of that cult. The sickos use friggin children to promote their messages from hell.

LOL that is too funny!! I belive it is because they are evil sons of bitches.

Other protest group

Does anyone know what group uses these signs? WBC has their standard signs, and I have seen this one multiple times, but I can't trace it to a particular organization. They look professionally made, so it would seem they are done by a particular group. Tim Long 05:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Not them. --Jnelson09 23:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Almost positive they are not WBC. Query the net for those phrases and you get hits. They seem to be counter demonstrators.

YouTube

YouTube

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 15:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Since when should YouTube not be used as a source? If the link to the video is relevant (i.e. it has an interview or some other material that is difficult to find) then a video link should only serve to strengthen the article. Finding transcripts of interviews on the net is difficult. Besides, the rules are guidelines, they're not set in stone.If a video is on there and it's clear that it came from a specific channel (you can see the watermarks usually) then I think it counts as reliable.
Now, I don't think YouTube should be used primarily, however they happen to be the biggest and most popular video site around, not much you can do about that.
And if it's copyright you're worried about, perhaps most of the pictures in this article should be removed, unless you have the permission of the original owner of the intellectual property. Most of them, from all over this site, seem to be up in the air. By that logic, half this bloody website infringes on copyright everyday, and no one seems to care. Why should YouTube be the exception? Chewbacca1010 10:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Um, didn't your momma ever teach you that two wrongs don't make a right? CovenantD 23:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Care to explain how this has anything to do with what I've argued? Refute my points if you can. Chewbacca1010 08:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Just because it's made available in the External Links, doesn't mean it's being used as a source. Tragic romance 13:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Which is all the more reason to remove it. It is against Wikipedia policy to link to a copyright violation- if something is on YouTube, it is almost certainly either unreliable or a copyright violation, and so not appropriate for a source or external link. J Milburn 21:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Spam

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

It appears that Cuberds was told that a link added to Chris DiBona was unwelcome, and is now attempting to make a point by deleting existing links from other articles. Refer to the user's contribs and talk page. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 00:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move of Westboro

Right now, Westboro points to a city in Ottawa that, quite frankly, doesn't appear much more notable than other Westboro cities or this church. I've proposed it be moved to make way for the current page Westboro (disambiguation). The chat is located at the end of Talk:Westboro; your contributions would be appreciated. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 03:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sky Television report

I added {{Fact}} needed to this section because many of the words in this section they simply did not say. It is odd considering it is easily verifiable. In particular:

  • The grand daughters said nothing like "they hoped no one else was one of the elect",
  • They didn't say they wanted everyone else in the world to die horribly and burn in hell. (What they said was that it would be fine with them if the whole world went to hell, but it was whatever God wanted),
  • They said nothing even remotely like "even if they didn't believe their actions were dictated by God, they would still do and enjoy them anyway".

This whole article is sloppy sloppy sloppy, full of made up quotes and misrepresentations. Why do you need to make up quotes for a group that says outrageous enough things in real life? GuyInCT

I spent a lot of time looking for the source of these quotes (assuming that there was more to the interview than the few bits in the Sky article), but couldn't find anything. — Laura Scudder ☎ 06:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

the comment Westboro_Baptist_Church is full of fags in the intro

seems like someone just put that in there as a joke

Reference and/or Purpose section all screwed up

Can someone who knows what they are doing fix up the Reference and/or Purpose section. Looks like someone who doesn't know what they are doing messed them up. (not me!)

Agree! Java programming mistake? 惑乱 分からん 12:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete this

Just delete this page and actually put up a page based on fact, not hate and "half-truths." This article is garbage and should be deleted —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.2.198.241 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

What facts would you like to see here, and what parts of the page are "half-truths"? -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 05:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

VANDALISM ALERT!

I discovered VANDALISM on this page. I cannot find the edit button as described in the how-to, else I would revert it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.131.10.163 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

What vandalism do you see? -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 05:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

None, anymore. Someone reverted it. I just figured out how to create an account. (Limited computer knowledge here) Bluecollarchessplayer 05:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This article contains irrelevant information

What is the point of going into so much detail on the "Composition of the Westboro Membership," including the last names of the families and how they're related, and the "Layout of the Westboro Compound," including where they park their pickup truck? It doesn't really add much in my opinion. Gordon Jones 02:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that there's nothing wrong with erring on the side of over-inclusiveness. If something is clearly irrelevant, then you're right, it doesn't belong. But if there's a chance that some people will be interested, then why not keep it in? In addition, such details help to establish better understanding of the subject, even though the details may not be useful on their own.

For example, the layout of the 'compound' shows that this is not just a simple church building. On the other hand, when someone hears "compound," they think Waco, etc. And that would be a misperception of WBC. Several houses with a fenced, common back yard, is not a "compound" the way Waco was. WBC's houses face the street openly and look just like all the other houses. Only the back yard is fenced in. Tragic romance 21:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If this article actually lists personal information about church members, wikipedia might as well post a sign on its home page, saying, "Sue us. Please!" Wahkeenah 03:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The composition is useful information, as it shows the inbred and closed nature of the "church." BTW, if it takes being fenced in to make a "compound," then Waco doesn't count. The only fences there were on the property line and to divide the back yard from the front, which is nearly universal in Texas. Critic-at-Arms 2 February 2007


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.