Jump to content

Talk:Westboro Baptist Church/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5


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)

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)

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Westboro_Baptist_Church/Archive_2&oldid=1148692861"