Talk:Westboro Baptist Church

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Westboro Baptist Church article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Westboro Baptist Church is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
To-do list for Westboro Baptist Church: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Cleanup: US military section. What is up with that gobbledygook?
  • Expand:
    1. Reference the trend of LGBT groups that do fundraisers when WBC threatens to picket (I believe a gay bar named drinks after Fred Phelps and used as a fundraiser)
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Archive
Archives
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:

Contents

[edit] Edit request

There is a video mentioned at the bottom of the page with a broken link, "America's most hated family." I found the video split into parts starting at:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4488321076404577951&q=the+most+hated+family+in+america&ei=jTY5SIreCo-WrgPJ7vX1Aw#

Please update the link, the video was interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpdesmond (talk • contribs) 11:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Link has been updated. Thank you for your research. Carter | Talk to me 11:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV?

While I hate WBC inbred rednecks as much as everyone else, I think some slogans from the article are somewhat POV. Dexcribing their biblical interepretation as "eisigesis" surely comes under this. There are other issues as well, but I can't remeber what they were. DanCrowter 20:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with you normally, but it makes sense here. I thought their website was a joke making fun of homophobes when I went to it first not knowing what it was, but when I found out it was the real deal I was horrified. These people are a worse version of Hitler, so any bad words are OK to describe them in my book. Tojo940 (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Well it's good to see you aren't letting your own passions and personal points of view getting in the way of your statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.88.188.113 (talk) 13:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

He's exaggerating a bit, but he's still pretty much right. These people are a horrific abomination to the rest of the human species. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.59.183 (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 11 million dollar verdict against WBC

i did a quick scan and i don't really see anything about the recent $11 million awarded to a father of a fallen soldier whose funeral had been picketed by WBC. a jury levied pretty heavy punitive damages against the WBC, and it could have serious consequences for the HATE GROUP (yes i am using the term HATE GROUP, since the WBC is considered such by the US government). it's a pretty serious moment in the WBC timeline, and i'm not sure if it's in the article, but if it is there it needs to be made more prominent, as it's presently either not mentioned or buried . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.38.184 (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

after doing a more thorough check, it's mentioned once, under the "activities" section. a single sentence, buried at the end of the paragraph in the middle of the "activities and statements" section. no mention in the "legal responses" area? yeah ok that makes sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.50.181 (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

it now has its own heading in the ToC. Rick Boatright 15:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally think that it was a good idea to fine the WBC because they are a hate group really working under Satan's orders. Even the children of the cult members are taught to spread hatred. Angie Y. 04:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion to lock

I've been seeing quite a bit of vandalism on this site because it got brought up in the news recently. I think that its probably a good idea to lock it from new users till the story blows over a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.4.217 (talk) 04:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I made that request last night and it went into effect a few hours ago. And some good editing has been going on since then. Nice job, folks.Anthony Krupp 11:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hate Group

I dont believe it should be a big deal that we include "Hate Group" in the article, as they shown holding up signs that say they "Hate" and there premier website has "Hate" right in the name, so nobody from the group should be offended as they they are very open about being a hate group, Thank You (~~dan102001~~)

Don't use hate group in the first sentence of the article. It violates the Neutral policy that wikipedia has. Yes, I know it is really a "hate group" but stick to the policy and don't call it a hate group. Be politically correct and call it a religous group or a movement group.

why are you defending a hate group? why are you on their side? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.41.254.43 (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

screw being politically correct, I am sorry but making sure we don't hurt thier feelings is not imprortant, they have no feelings, they called the Amish girls whores, they ARE a hate group, wikipedia should tell the truth, I don't think wikipedia has a political correct policy, so don't add it!

Whether your feelings are that they are a hate group or not is for you to decide not for entranced into the article. It should not be mentioned as a hate group in the first sentenced though it should be mentioned that they are considered a hate group as it is later in the introduction. I don't like them either but the article should still remain as NPOV as possible -usmarinesjz 08/15/2007 12:48(UTC)

Uh, the WBC is a hate group. If they're not a hate group, the classification is, in my mind, worthless. It's not violation of NPOV to call a group dedicated to the wanton disparagement and slander of fallen soldiers a hate group, or at least, I can't see any sane way to say it is. Do you want them picketing your funeral? 76.90.135.239 (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Mrld 17:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Except it's not. It's a hate group under the guise of religious undertaking, much like Al-Qaeda. Coolgamer 18:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Amen to that... these people should be shot. Codackussell 00:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
    • In fact, all extremists should be shot. Or at least be compelled to watch Martha Stewart 24 x 7. Wahkeenah 02:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

WBC does not hide their opinions, the label hate group is only useful for groups that hide their opinions and actions. FWIW, WBC is completely non violent. Geo8rge 20:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The Klan doesn't hide their opinions either, but they still qualify. And verbal abuse is also a form of violence. Wahkeenah 00:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
If WBC isn't a hate group, who is? I question the assertion that "the label hate group is only useful for groups that hide their opinions and actions." Maybe some hate groups hide some of their actions, but in fact I know of NO hate group that hides their opinions. They have fliers and t-shirts and direct mail! 72.83.177.20 (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This group is definetly a hate-movement group. They should be condemed for breach of the peace. They should actually just be called the Ku Klux Klan. Except instead of 'african-americans' they go after Gays and people who disagree with them.

Well, that's pretty much everyone then. Seriously though, it's a question of semantics. Is the phrase "hate group" objective, or a matter of opinion? LyraLight 10:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Church group sounds better. "Hate group" does violate WP:NPOV, so it says church group. Feel free to discuss it only my take page. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 02:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Church group??? That's a smear against all other church groups. They have "Hate" in their slogan. How much more evidence do you need??? Wahkeenah 02:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
They are a church group. Look at a quote by Phelps himself: "Westboro refers to itself as a Primitive Baptist church, claiming adherence to the philosophy of John Calvin and to the principles of the Five points of Calvinism." That is why I would define it as a church group. Also, hate group as an opening sentence goes against WP:NPOV. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 02:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The KKK is also a "church" group. However, the word HATE appears prominently in that picture, twice yet, so maybe we don't need to overkill the obvious. On a side note, I do appreciate your clearing up the fact that they are, in fact, Calvinists, in contrast to what someone else was griping about, a week or so ago. Wahkeenah 03:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok heres the deal we should either leave it at hate or delete the article they are very blunt with the fact that they are a HATE GROUP we are not offendig anybody

You're logically right, but (1) you'll never convince that one user; and (2) technically they would argue that God is the hater and they are just His "messengers". Wahkeenah 02:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It currently says "Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) is a U.S. church group headed ... " But as a matter of style, maybe ditch the word "group" and just call it a church. My 2 cents. 69.154.178.37 03:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"The ___ church is a church [group]" sounds redundant, and "The ___ church is a church" sounds even more redundant. Maybe the "is" and whatever modifier follows it should be dropped altogether. Wahkeenah 13:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sweet, I can hav a hate group but wiki would never call it a hate group... Hitler didn't kill anyone, amirite, lol

Nor would any reputable Encyclopedia, since they kind of try to remain objective and unbiased, and the term “hate group” is ultimately an opinion, since there are many people, including those within alleged “hate groups” that would disagree. To those who would like to see the WBC referred to as a “hate group” in the first line of the article, I would just like to point out that the ultimate goal here at Wikipedia, (or at least I'm fairly confident it is) is the creation of a public domain ENCYCLOPEDIA, that is as accurate, dependable, and reputable as any other established for-pay Encyclopedias. As such Wikipedia does its best to try and govern its content by the same set of standards that all reputable and established Encyclopedias adhere to. If one is ever unsure of how to approach a sensitive or controversial subject objectively or unsure what content is appropriate to include in an article, or the Encyclopedia as a whole, check to see how other reputable Encyclopedias have handled the same or similar subjects. If there’s some specific definition, or wording you’d like to use in an article, that you feel is relevant to the subject and also adheres to Wikipedia’s policies regarding objectivity and neutrality (which ALL Encyclopedias adhere to), but once posted, others comment on and disagree, just look up the same, or similar subject in say “The Encyclopedia Britannica”, and see what they considered to be an “objective” and “neutral” approach. If the “Encyclopedia Britannica’s” highly educated, expert, experienced authors and editors chose to omit the specific wording or definition you’d like to include, it’s fairly safe to say that it’s probably not very “objective” or “neutral”, when determined, applied, or used to refer to an organization by the articles author. Concerning the WBC and labeling then prominently as a “hate group”, it should be noted that although the “The Encyclopedia Britannica”, as well as any other established print Encyclopedia I referred to failed to include any information on the WBC at present, they all however included lengthy articles regarding the Ku Klux Klan, and even though many people here feel that if any group at all is to be labeled a “hate group” it should be the KKK; Every one of these established and reputable Encyclopedias failed to do so, which can only leave one to assume that there’s a good chance the label of “hate group” is probably subjective after all, when determined, or applied by the Encyclopedia itself. One can however remain objective and neutral by reporting which, if any, notable organizations have themselves determined the WBC to be a “hate group” or have made public statements to that effect, which actually has been noted within this article. If Wikipedia sincerely wants to establish itself as a reputable reference, it probably wouldn’t hurt to refer to already reputable Encyclopedias, and emulate how they chose to handle a particular subject, in cases where one isn’t sure. Ppisarczyk (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

They quite clearly meet the wikipedia definition of a hate group. To wit: "A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates hate, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other designated sector of society" -from Wikipedia's own entry for "hate group." I've edited the page accordingly. ~JustADude

Just like one's terrorist is another's freedom fighter so too is one's hate another's righteousness. In other words, it's subjective to call the WCB, or any group, a "hate" group.
Moral equivalence is a fallacy, not the height of sophistication. Please try again. 70.146.75.89 22:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
And that statement commits the fallacy of the excluded middle. Moral equivalence is a fallacy, but wikipedia is not here to make moral judgements on groups no matter how wrong they are; instead it is to represent the facts. If the group do not define themselves as a hate group they shouldn't be labelled as such. Reality is not represented - let the picture speak for itself and stop trying to interpret the information for the reader.

--NZUlysses 05:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

In short, you can't call any group a hate group. Wahkeenah 15:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course you can call a hate group a hate group. Not to do so is to misrepresent reality. - Nunh-huh 15:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This is me talking, but I figure the term "hate group" is an understatement. --Jnelson09 00:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
WBC is in fact a Hate Business which calls itself a Church. Simple reason: the label permits tax evasion. Fred finally hit the big-time when he discovered Da-Glo/Florescent signs in about mid-1997. The misguided children are proud to be named in print. Might want to reference the most recent KS court challenge to protests/pickets: how close/when etc.KSfarmgal 02:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

i think osama would think this is a hate group.i hope they go to iran and protest(Esskater11 15:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

From Wiki's NPOV: "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly." There are no conflicting perspectives: they ARE a hate group. They advocate hate. Freely, openly, on their own. They do nothing else BUT advocate hate. There are no existing arguments to say they aren't a hate group. Therefor, it does not violate neutrality to call them a hate group. Azuaron 03:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.45.251 (talk)

I disagree the WBC should be labeled a "hate group", if anything because as far as I've seen the label of "hate group" generally only applies to secular organizations. Although the KKK may consider itself a Christian organization, it does not practice its own religion, nor is it a religious sect. The problem with labeling a religious sect, like the WBC, a "hate group" on account of their preaching hatred and intolerance of homosexuality, is that by the same standards it would follow that all religious sects that preach or promote hatred and intolerance of homosexuality would also qualify as "hate groups". Why not label all religious sects that preach or promote hatred and intolerance of anyone at all "Hate groups"? Considering that all fundamentalist, extremist, ultra-conservative, or fringe religious sects qualify as "hate groups" to some degree, on account of promoting the hatred and intolerance of some group of people, whether publicly with poster board, or behind closed doors among their congregation, that's a lot of editing to be done here at Wikipedia, now that someone has to place the words "hate group" in the first line describing a significant portion of the world’s religions and their various sects. The difference here, between the fundamentalist, ultra-conservative, Westborough Baptist Church, and say for instance, fundamentalist, ultra-conservative Baptists in general, is that the WBC is deliberately trying to attract attention to itself and advertising their beliefs in the public forum, whether people want to hear them or not. Most of the other fundamentalist, ultra-conservative, religious sects, sans the various Muslim extremists of course, generally keep to promoting their hatred and intolerance of homosexuality, behind church doors, among themselves.

I would also like to point out that neither the Encyclopedia Britannica, nor Google’s definition search, nor even Wikipedia itself, chooses to define the Ku Klux Klan as a "hate group". In fact, you’d be hard pressed to even find the word “hate” used at all. (Ppisarczyk (talk) 07:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC))

I would not only call this a hate group, but I would also term this as a cult or a dangerous religious group. Not only is it hateful, it's exclusive, insular and controlling - if you don't do exactly as they say, you're going to hell. Jeanie821 18:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As would many of us; however, Wikipedia is based on verifiable facts from published sources, not on the opinions of its editors. TSP (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

WBC is a hate group by their own definition. They are also a small local cult of personality with worldwide scope through more than a dozen Internet websites with "Hate" in the name. Fred Phelps name should be included in the discription of this group since it's all about Phelps misuse of scriptural condemnation of sin to preach his doctrine of HATE and hatefulness. Although the Phelps organization calls themselves a "church", they are anti-Christian, anti-Jew, and anti-everybody but Fred Phelps and his family. Phelps and WBC should be charged as an organized criminal hate group and taken out of business under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The very labels of "hate group," "cult," or "extremist" are subjective, loaded and emotional; just like one's terrorist may be another's freedom fighter. It would be more fair to say that many view this group as such rather than making a declaration that they are as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.192.190 (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think people are understanding objectivity and its role in WP. The WBC, at heart, is a religious "fundamentalist" or "extremist" sect, and is similar to any other church, with its own agenda, political views/motives, and yes, cushy business loopholes. It is objective to use those words to describe them, and later in the intro or article, inform the reader that they are considered by many to be a hate group, etc. To just outright call them that is subjective...its YOUR opinion. They think they're doing god's work, and doing the right thing. It doesn't matter that you or I or the majority of the country feels that they're awful people, and that some of you are of the opinion that they should be killed or raped by osama bin laden's pirate ghost, because opinions aren't relevent here unless presented as such. Taking the opinion of the majority or the government and declaring it as fact is not only incorrect, its a dangerous practice that's led to almost every persecution in history. There have been times before where people who were morally/scientifically correct in their protests and arguments were labeled as heretics or monsters or the ever popular "unpatriotic," and later on found to be right. Now, I'm not saying this applies in this case, or at least, I really really hope it doesn't, lol, but the argument stands in support of not condemning something in an objective forum on grounds of someone's opinion, no matter how awful the thing is. The WP page for Satan begins by describing him as an angel or jinn, depending on faith. It doesn't start with, "Satan is the prince of darkness, lord of pain, king of damnation and filth and suffering," because that's someone's or some organization's opinion...some people might really like the guy and think he's alright. So I'm not condoning the WBC and their actions, I'm just saying take your opinions and ranting to a message board, or maybe the facebook group dedicated to it, because they would be better served than here. Present both sides of the story from the middle ground, or the encyclopaedic system doesn't work. Thanks for hearing me out. Ohnoitsthefuzz (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Ohnoitsthefuzz The labeling of any group "hate group" is POV and not objective at all.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
WBC is a relatively small extended family and cult of personality. It is a profitable hate mongering business disguised as a "church" for the purpose of avoiding taxes. There should be no question of a biased POV being involved when defining the obvious malevolent nature of the group because all their Internet websites specifically include the word, "hate". WBC is, indeed, a Hate Group. Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You people are idiots. The point of Wikipedia is to give knowledge, not make friends. THEY ARE A HATE GROUP. THEY OPENLY ADMIT THAT THEY ARE A HATE GROUP. Trying to say "Ok, they are a hate group, but dont put that, its mean" is like saying the article on Osama Bin Laden shouldn't say he's a terrorist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.11.77 (talk) 04:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If the church said that it was, in wikipedia's POV understanding, primarrly a hate group; the classification would be correctly aplied and justified to the originisation. The memmbers of WBC currently are part of a full-religeon/indipendant religeois sect, addmitably as viable as the Thugee cult, which means that classifing the group in the introduction as a hate group is persacution (ironicly). However, stating that the group [u]complies and ratifies[/u] the classification for being a hate group is perfectly viable and in-keeping with Wiki's POV; meaning that the introduction can read "The Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) is a controversial religious organization headed by Fred Phelps and based in Topeka, Kansas, United States and has activities and views which make the group conform with the classification of a hate group". But my main concern is that this article may become to critical for a enciclopedic article, the constant undertone of judjement means that this article is bias and could be classed as unfair to WBC. It is not Wikipedia's intention or goal to stop these bigots; but supply BALANCED and FAIR information on the group- never mind that doing so go's against all common decency and upstanding. TheJackle (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

My main objection is that saying the SPLC calls them a hate group is implied that it makes the statement true. The SPLC calls everyone who doesn't agree with them hate groups and their statements have no legal standing what so ever. Frankly if there were two SPLCs, they would probably call each other hate groups for both being racist against white people. And as is often the case with the SPLC, that statement would be unfounded. You can't use one bad and biased organizations statements to condemn another one. It' just bad tactics. There IS a legal definition of a hate group and this group does not match it since they do not actively engage in organized violence. (The key word there is organized. What a few loner redneck members do is outside the radar legally.) ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.88.188.113 (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crticism: Keith R. Wood

{{editprotected}} Under Criticism, the stament "[i]n 2004, Libertarian columnist Keith R. Wood suggested that the Westboro Baptists are actually trying to create sympathy for homosexual activism and to engender anti-Christian sentiment due to the offensive nature of their activities and Phelps' own statements regarding tactics" should be removed. According to WP:V, "Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources." No matter what you opinion on WBC's work may be, this specific claim is definitely "exceptional" and would require a very strong source. Not only does this statement not have a source, but assuming it is refering to the same source that I'm disputing here, the Keith R. Wood in question is an opinion columnist at an online-only newspaper, which I would makes the source indistinguishable from any other person's blog. This person, as far as I could tell after a reasonable Google search, does not appear to have any expertise in this area, and does not cite anything to back up this belief (or others in the same article such as claiming that WBC is funded by NAMBLA), so I can't imagine that this would be considered a reliable source by a neutral observer. Since I cannot edit this page, I am requesting deletion of this unsourced statement. Thanks! --Drake Maijstral 01:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This page is not fully protected, so admin assistance isn't needed. You should work out consensus on the content and the make the changes yourself. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I placed a citation needed tag. I could not find the article or very much about the author. At some point I suspect the link will be removed, but cannot be sure there is no citation. Geo8rge 16:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Not sure why it took so long. jim.boggia@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.247.214 (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly Stupid Question

How on earth does this come under "Project Judaism"?? Is it because he hates Jews, too? (If it would annoy him, please just ignore my question & leave it under PJ. (-: )FlaviaR 18:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect it's because it mentions antisemitism (and is in Category:Antisemitism, which is a subcategory of Category:Jews and Judaism). It's hard to be totally sure, as the Wikiproject doesn't seem to have an index of all the pages it covers; but their banner seems to be on most of the pages in the Antisemitism category. Ultimately, wikiprojects can spread their wings as wide as they like - though in a few cases editors have been supported by consensus in removing wikiproject banners from pages where they felt they were irrelevant. TSP 18:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
TSP is correct, the project was added by a bot here, and per the bot's user page it is adding everything that is categorized into any of the categories listed here, so either antisemitism or holocaust denial would have got it added. - Optigan13 05:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Removed it. They aren't anti-Semites at all. What they hate is 'Reform Judaism' - a type of so-called 'Judaism' that justifies homosexuality (while the Torah is clear about it). For 'Reform Jews' Judaism means whatever they want it to mean. If something in Judaism doesn't fit their view of the world - then they delete that something from Judaism.
From what I've seen, also, their references to hating (Reform) Judaism are completely in line with their hating moderate streams of Christianity who are not virulently opposed to homosexuality.
I think that I might want to remind others here that I myself (a Haredi Jew in Jerusalem) was brutally beaten up by the Zionist police while peacefully protesting against the 2006 'international gay parade' held in our holy city of Jerusalem. Four policemen threw me to the ground, and while I was lying on the ground, defenseless and crying for mercy, they kept throwing me with batons until I had bleeding wounds and bruizes all over my body.
My rabbis pronounced a HOLY WAR against the cursed and wicked invididuals who invaded Jerusalem then, and we did everything in our might to stop it. Our rabbis had called upon us to be willing to go for full self-sacrifice.
What a bittul z'man protesting peacefully - they meant you should have some mesirus nefesh and stay up all night saying tehillim. Did you really “go full sacrifice” – the parade went ahead, why were the frummers unable to prevent it? Weaklings! Chesdovi 12:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Thus, I am quite sure that the Westboro people wouldn't call my type of Judaism so very wrong. In my type of Judaism, homosexuality is regarded as one of the very worst sins there are, equal to murder. The 'gay parade' that was held here was a punishment from G-d, so our rabbis declared. I refer to the following links: [1], [2], [3].
Thus, it seems obvious, considering the points I mentioned, that the Westboro members are absolutely not anti-Semitic. They are opposed to religious hypocrites - Jews and Christians and Muslims alike. True Christians, Jews and Muslims virulently oppose homosexuality.
That is not to say that I, in any way, agree with their modus operandi. I am opposed to their activities, but I understand their philosophy. --Motz5768 10:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
"a Haredi Jew in Jerusalem" - a follower of rabbis who pronounced a HOLY WAR? You must be a follower of the rabbis who also banned out of question internet use, velo taturu acharei levavchem - it seems the gays aren't the only GUILTY ones! - tut tut. Chesdovi 12:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I returned the category last night, since I hadn't seen an explanation for removing it. Reading the preceding, I have to note that Motz's explanation is that they are not antisemites. That may be, but the category is for Project Judaism, not Project Anti-semitism. Thus I think a more compelling reason has to be given to justify the category removal. Thoughts on this? 76.109.242.51 11:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I also reverted that deletion as the project tag itself does not denote anti-semitism. Kudos though for sharing that hatred against gays is hardly limited to one side of the pond or one religious group. Frad Phelps by the way has been accused of being a closeted gay man but I haven't seen a reference for it except as a side mention in an article (I think about the 1996 LGBT March on Washington). Benjiboi 11:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
It is simply in no way related to Judaism. This group (/article) has no connection at all to Judaism, so having it in that category is utter nonsense. The fact that a bot added it doesn't mean that users can't remove it. --Motz5768 11:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
With consensus, of course it can be removed. That's what talk pages are for. TSP has given one explanation for this article's inclusion, and I tend to think it should stay pending further discussion. If I'm not mistaken, this group has also used the slogan "God hates Reform Judaism," so perhaps that's why it's in this Project. Do others want to weigh in on this?Anthony Krupp 11:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I will. Phelps was cited by the Anti-Defamation League for his numerous anti-semitic comments[1]: On General Wesley Clark and John Kerry (of Jewish descent):

"His Christ-rejecting, God-hating Jew blood bubbled to the surface. Yes, like his boss [John] Kerry, Clark is a Jew….That these two turds are Jews would not matter—except when they ask for supreme political power & spit in the Face of God, pushing for same-sex marriage, threatening to bring down God’s wrath on us as on Sodom—then some inquiries are in order. Beware! ‘Jews killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men; forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins always; for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.” 1 Thess. 2:14.’ Apostate fags & Jews certain to bring God’s wrath.”"

"Homosexuals and Jews dominated Nazi Germany...just as they now dominate this doomed U.S.A....The Jews now wander the earth despised, smitten with moral and spiritual blindness by a divine judicial stroke...And god has smitten Jews with a certain unique madness, whereby they are an astonishment of heart, a proverb, and a byword (the butt of jokes and ridicule) among all peoples whither the Lord has driven and scattered them...Jews, thus perverted, out of all proportion to their numbers energize the militant sodomite agenda...The American Jews are the real Nazis (misusers and abusers of governmental power) who hate God and the rule of law."

Seems like Judaism project would be interested in this. Benjiboi 11:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw a documentary about them and a member was questioned about Jews. He said he hates them because they killed jesus - when the interviewer said the Jews nowadays had nothing to do with it - he replied that they believe in the same things. They hate Jews (as most Christians did in previous centuries) whether they condone homosexuality or not. Chesdovi 12:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Just like they hate Christians. Well, actually, I suppose this just about the most classical example of a 'hate group' you'll find anywhere in the world. I don't think anyone else manages to hate the entire world population (minus 60 people) as virulently as they do. It either has to be a (sick) prank, or they really need a psychiatrist. An entire mental institution, more like. Creedmore, anyone? (Note: Only Chesdovi might understand the latter remark.) --Motz5768 12:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speculation about the servers

Their websites (at least some) have been working today. They must just be swamped. Please don't add speculations to the webpage about why they might be down. Anthony Krupp 00:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the WHOIS-info, godhatesfags.com has been suspended by the domain-registrar for violating their AUP 91.59.238.64 14:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

At this time (see sig) godhatesfags.com is returning Network Solutions AUPTERMINATION server rather than godhatesfags.com's usual DNS sever. Network Solutions AUP is found here [4] and the whois is returning
Visit AboutUs.org for more information about GODHATESFAGS.COM AboutUs: GODHATESFAGS.COM
Registrant:
Westboro Baptist Church
ATTN: GODHATESFAGS.COM
c/o Network Solutions
P.O. Box 447
Herndon, VA 20172-0447
Domain Name: GODHATESFAGS.COM
Record expires on 23-Jan-2017
Record created on 22-Jan-1997
Database last updated on 02-Nov-2007
Domain servers in listed order: Manage DNS
INVALID-DNS.AUPTERMINATION.COM 216.168.228.253
NOT-HOSTED.AUPTERMINATION.COM 216.168.228.254
So, it appears that as of today, someone successfully complained to Network Solutions. Rick Boatright 15:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Looks like they're back up on Freedom Networks. A2-computist 14:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If WBC was actually shut down (censored) for violating some sort of user argreement I think that might be worth commenting on.Geo8rge 18:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Counter Protests

In the counter protest section it lists the Patriot Guard Riders as one of the counter protest groups. The Patriot Guard never has been, nor ever will be counter protesting the WBC. The Patriot Guard's sole purpose in showing up at the funerals, as INVITED GUESTS OF THE FAMILY, is to show honor and respect for the deceased, the family, and the community of the fallen solder. They do not counter protest in any way; they don't even talk to or even look a the WBC if they show up. The Patriot Guard will come if invited to show honor and respect, whether not the WBC says they are coming. The Patriot Guard stresses that WE are not a protest group. Please change the characterization of the PGR comments. Honeydog101 10:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)HoneydogHoneydog101 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

To a degree; however, the Patriot Guard's website is clear that one of their aims is to 'Shield the mourning family and their friends from interruptions created by any protestor or group of protestors'; and that the initial aim of those who established it was to 'form a battle plan to combat Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church'. Perhaps 'counter protest' is inaccurate, as the Patriot Guard do not protest per se (though 'may sing, rev our engines or say the Pledge of Allegiance' in order to shield mourners from protesters), but it seems a valid inclusion in that general area of the article if worded appropriately. TSP 17:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I totally disagree with you TSP. You left out the other portion the first and most important part of what we do at the funerals which is to pray our respects to the fallen soldier and his family. I've been at over 30 funerals with the PGR, I've only seen the WBC show up twice (even though they threaten to show up at almost every one of them). Whether the WBC is there or not is irrelevant. Mention of the PGR is ok, we just are not and never will be a counter protest group. Honeydog101 10:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)HoneydogHoneydog101 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I left it out because you'd already mentioned it. Yes, it is true that the group's primary stated aim is to "Show our sincere respect for our fallen heroes, their families, and their communities." However, it is also the case that its second stated aim is to "Shield the mourning family and their friends from interruptions created by any protestor or group of protestors" (Ref: [5]); and that the group was set up in direct response and opposition to Westboro Baptist Church(Ref: [6]). As I say, 'counter protest' is probably the wrong term, but it seems valid to mention the group in that general area of the article. TSP 14:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I added a section that refers to the Patriot Guard Riders WP page. Geo8rge 17:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't need its own section, so I moved it into the counter-protests section. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 17:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems we all agree the PGR are not a protest group themselves, and that they were initially formed to counter the protests of WBC. In the current article ([7]), the PGR are listed under the heading "Counter protests". Therefore a reader may be left with the incorrect impression that the PGR are themselves a protest group. So I think the description of the PGR should be moved to a different section. None of the existing sections seems to fit, so I'll re-create their own section. HelloAnnyong – I think if a group now numbering 120,000 began as a response to WBC, then this deserves its own (albeit short) section. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 09:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just a grammatical error that I don't have the authority to fix.

Under the "Responses" topic, in the "Laws Prohibiting Funeral Protests" section, there is an error (I believe) in the last sentence of the first paragraph.

"On January 11, 2006 the bill unanimously (11-0) passed a committee vote,[49] and while members of the church had showed up in Kokomo, Indiana, to protest, they were nowhere to be seen during or after the funeral service."

I believe "had showed up" should be "had shown up"

MetallichickX 10:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right, MetallichickX. I edited the relevant section, but decided that to "show up" is not very encylopaedic language, so I reworded a bit. TrulyBlue 12:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought that my correction still sounded wrong, but I couldn't quite place why. I was hoping that I wasn't making a fool out of myself. Nice revision! MetallichickX 11:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


In the seventh ¶ of Activities and statements, the phrase "...the town's city auditorium..." occurs. Logically, while a town could have a municipal auditorium only a city could have a city auditorium. Dick Kimball (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Since fixed. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 03:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Website

The website isnt back on line... who the heck said it was? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.38.64 (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The server is resolving again, and the URL loads a page with a statement about a revamping the site, so it _is_ back online, even if most of the content is unavailable. A2-computist 15:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opposition to WBC Web Sites

The section "Opposition to WBC Web Sites" needs to go. The section itself was added by Iridius Izzarne. I can't find any articles on this. The section is entirely uncited, suffers from self-promotion, and possibly breaks WP:COI. I see no reason why it should stay. Does anyone? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 14:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I should add that, as per WP:SOAP, Wiki is not a place for self-promotion. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 14:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I created the section, and added the need for a citation, since I saw it in the general introduction but it didn't seem worthy of being so prominent. I'm happy for it to go if there are no cites and there's a prima facie case for it being WP:SOAP. TrulyBlue 15:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I vote that the Opposition to the WBC Web Sites stay, but that citations be added. I noticed that the WBC website was intermittently down during that timeframe. However, I do not believe that The Planet is the company that hosts godhatesfags.com, the IP address for godhatesfags.com is in the netblock for Cox Communications NETBLK-WI-CBS-70-184-224-0, this is consistent with one of Shirlee's known email accounts. I also think that there needs to be proof that Iridius' complaint is the one responsible for the site being down. It is also interesting to note that speakfree.net is a domain owned by WBC, it appears that they have now purchased their own netblock (WESTBORO BAPT CHURCH-051222023102 SBC07025216918429051222023111) so they can host their domains directly. 69.111.244.205 08:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the section is uncited and that the above information (which is Original Research and not really usable in the wiki) sheds more doubt on the whole area. We don't have any authoritative information on whether the web site was deliberately pulled, why by, and on what grounds, or whether it was simply flooded. On that basis the section is speculation, and unless someone puts in some good citations in the next couple of days, it should go. It's just one event in the history of WBC, and hardly noteworthy in the context of the whole article, anyway.
By the way, the current citation of Planet's Ts&Cs is not adequate to cofirm what actually happened to the site.TrulyBlue 10:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. We don't need to make a note every time a website goes down, unless it's something truly notable (e.g. when Suprnova.org was first taken down.) — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 13:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Even then, Wikipedia is not for journalism. It can wait until the subject has been covered by at least one reliable external news source. If something is important enough, these days that will be within hours if not minutes. If not, well, maybe it wasn't as notable as you thought. TSP 14:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of any support, other than from Iridius who is a little too close to the event, I've deleted the section. Even if it is shown that the ISP took it down briefly and re-instated it, that's not significant unless maybe there was some sort of legal argument. TrulyBlue 16:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Dual genealogical relationships"

Can anyone clarify this? Currently the wiki implies that some members are "married to the brother or sister of their father or mother". Is it legal for someone to marry their uncle or aunt in Kansas? Can anyone cite a specific such marriage within WBC? I would have thought that there would be incest laws preventing this, but there again, I'm not from Kansas. TrulyBlue 09:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No one related as first cousins or closer can get married in Kansas. First cousins can be married elsewhere (e.g. Alabama, Texas, New Mexico, Colorado) and would still be married even if they moved to Kansas. Aunt-nephew and Uncle-niece marriages are forbidden in all 50 U.S. states, except for Jews in Rhode Island. Uncle-niece marriages were previously allowed in Georgia (because it is not a relationship forbidden in Leviticus). - Nunh-huh 09:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, Nunh-huh. It seems to me that the specific examples are probably incorrect, so I'll remove them and ask for a citation for the general claim of multiple relationships (by marriage). TrulyBlue 14:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Other prejudices

While I heartily agree, is that heading not just a wee bit POV? 146.176.61.2 (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. What would be best: "Other targets", "Other beliefs", or something else? TrulyBlue (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. Skomorokh incite 00:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, but isn't 'Value judgement' itself POV? From its wiki: "The term is also employed, often in a disparaging sense, to imply that a statement is not objectively true" and "the term can be used both in a positive sense, ... or a disparaging sense" (but there's nothing about it being used in a neutral sense). Damn these words, damn this objectivity, it's all too hard! TrulyBlue (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Here is another one of the prejudices. According to this video (of WBC members) Westboro Church now hates every single person on the planet.

http://www.warrenellis.com/?p=5361 ColombianConservative (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jokela school shooting

I would like to ask why my edit regarding to Jokela school shooting and this church was removed? It was true that they published stuff about it. Yakuzakyuu (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It was not a slogan. They publish news articles every week, a news article is not a sloan. They said they will come to picket to Helsinki. Now, if they do that and we have a source that they had signs "Thank God for 9 Dead Finns" then it is a slogan. But haven't heard of them yet here. :) --Pudeo⺮ 09:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. This cleared things out. But I would like to see how our police forces would react to them..Yakuzakyuu (talk) 16:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Addicted to Hate manuscript

Stop adding links to this thing. It is not a reliable source, it's a bunch of text written by some unknown person who may or may not be a reporter. It was never published, it doesn't belong linked to any wikipedia article. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the bible entirely a hate manuscript?
Love for Enemies - Matthew 5:43
43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you
That trumps all the other contradictions and vagenesses even if WBC refuse to acknowedge it in order to push their hate agenda. 146.87.193.90 (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:Talk this isn't to discuss WBC or the bible, its to discuss the article. Coffeepusher (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heath Ledger

I came here because I wasn't sure the flyer circulating around the internet and supposedly distributed by the WBC was from a REAL organization. I am shocked to find that it is, in fact, real. And while I am as disturbed as the next person by this hate group, the wording in the part about Heath Ledger shows an obvious bias and should probably be changed. (I mean, this article doesn't need to lean in any direction; these people speak totally for themselves.) 140.247.250.223 (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

could you be more clear on how it is bias. my personal observation is that stating they will protest and then having a copy of the news anouncement is as accurate as you can get without adding any bias. Coffeepusher (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The funeral will be held in Perth, Australia. Are they intending to travel to Australia? 58.106.24.1 (talk) 05:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
as I understand, they actually don't protest alot of the one's they say they will. but no word on if they retracted their statement. Coffeepusher (talk) 05:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
They plan on protesting the American remembrance ceremony, most likely. They'd be arrested in AustraliaAudhumlaX (talk) 07:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Experience suggests that they announce these things primarily for publicity rather than because they actually intend on carrying through. It's expensive to fly to Australia, and they get plenty of publicity by simply announcing that they will disrupt the burial. Ledger's body has already left the U.S., and there are no memorials planned, so I think the risk of the Westboro dullards actually coming out of their lair is pretty slim. - Nunh-huh 07:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changed classification

Changed classification from church to hate group. Many will diagree, but lets call a duck a duck. No need to say otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.33.109.12 (talk) 12:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually there is a need to say otherwise, as "hate group" is a point of view (granted, it's a point of view shared by everyone on the planet...), however "church" is less of a viewpoint. - Koweja (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments about Gays....what really happens in these churches?

Being involved with one of these "churches" years ago I noticed many indiscretions including "homosexuality", "adultery", "husband and wife swapping"etc...We regularly received a sermon from a particular member of the church who would "rebuke" members of the congregation on adultery when we later realised he had seduced a male friend of mine who attended the church. I might also add that this behaviour was right across the board in many of these churches. I don't have a problem with homosexuals, adulterers, I'm simply amazed how these extremist churches criticise these behaviours when they are rife within their own circles. They should perhaps care to remember that they don't have the right to "Play God" , only God can be the judge of what's right and wrong. Out of morbid curiosity I had a look at the website belonging to this particular church and all I can see if a string of foul mouthed profanities regarding "gays and "adulterers". I feel as though they perhaps need some Christian guidance?

(Loretta71 (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC))

I think I can decide what is right or wrong without any sort of god. My decision? These people are wrong, and I'm damn surprised that the article is as unbiased as it is. Good job, guys. I couldn't have done it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.59.183 (talk) 03:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] These people are not worth to mention in an encyclopedia

I will never understand why these hate people are in the Wikipedia! I really feel ashamed. Why are they here? Because they stand in the media?? They are not religious nor famous, they are not worth mentioning! I think they are really happy to find this big article about them and they really don't care about the content. If they were a big movement, ok, but they are only 80 people. You are giving them a status they don't deserve. They are greedy for any attention they can get. If you put them here you have to put every single person who stands in the speaker's corner in Hyde Park. If you really think, that they have to be in Wikipedia, give them three sentences, that's more than enough. Please think about. Please excuse my English, I'm not a native speaker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luzymae (talk • contribs) 13:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they're very famous. As they are notable, they warrant an article here, even if they are a small group. As for giving them attention, well first, they have plenty of it already so an article on Wikipedia won't tip the scales at all, and second, Wikipedia (as a whole) does not have opinions on anything, and therefore we don't refuse to write articles on subjects that people disagree with. Even if almost everyone on the planet disagrees with them. - Koweja (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. I think that is the other side of the coin in a fast moving media world. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. I hope that the attention will die with the death of the clan chief. And then, in retrospective someone will revise the article in regard to influence and importance of these hatemongers. And dubbed them as a marginal phenomenon worth only a sentence. Hope so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luzymae (talk • contribs) 16:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This group gets a lot of attention because they make for emotional, controversial reports and interviews. It's more of a comment on the media's exploitation of these types of stories than about Phelps' actual influence. The WBC actually has very little, if any, influence outside itself. The WBC can be seen as relevant in another way - how obscure religious doctrine can inspire these types of groups. To be fair, what the WBC stands for says is in line with one interpretation of the Bible.

WBC is IRL trolls. Which is humorous at worst. Plus they don't mind black people. Wikifried (talk) 05:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-semitism and Anti-Christian section

This section is unclear. How and what makes the WBC anti-Christian? The WBC is not only a Christian organization but this section doesn't provide any evidence as to how they are anti-Christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.192.190 (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Check out this Hitler quote: "The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... "
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html In other words, being anti-Jewish is also anti-Christian and anti-Bolshevik because Jews came up with both. Jesus was a Jew, and so was Marx. --69.234.208.72 (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I've remeved the "Anti-Christian" tag from this section. The controversial theory above aside, I can't see anything in this section which relates to Christianity.
Indeed, I wonder if it should be Anti-Judaism - the term "antisemitism" to me means persecution of Jews as a race, rather than as a faith, whereas the content of this section seems to largely relate to the faith, not the race. A flick through our articles on the topics does seem to put persecution of the Jewish faith under antisemitism (as Religious antisemitism), though, so maybe this is right. TSP (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
It's still anti-Christian. Christianity came from Judaism. Christianity is the result of the Jewish Messiah's teachings. --69.234.208.72 (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
That may technically be true, but nevertheless appending every instance of "antisemitism" in the encyclopedia with "...and anti-Christianity" to reflect this belief would be going too far. TSP (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

WBC isn't so much anti-Christian as it is non-Christian. The beliefs of its members conflict a lot with mainstream Christianity, but the church isn't actively against Christianity, which means it isn't anti-Christian. --clpo13(talk) 20:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Charlesfirth.JPG

Image:Charlesfirth.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Cults

Should this article be included in Category:Cults? I have removed it because no other specific religious denominations/sects seem to be included in the category. The category seems to be reserved for things like "cult practices", not actual organizations. Ditto with Template:Cults — this article is not linked on the template, and normally if the article is not linked on the template the template is not included on the page. I'm not trying to defend the organization or its tactics by any means, but I think there's something inherently problematic (POV?) with an encylopedia using the word "cult" to refer to an organization that claims to be a Christian church. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It is impossible to imagine a worse group of people. Total scum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.228.10 (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

WBC is a small extended family cult of personality based upon Fred Phelp's bigotry, with "church" status for tax evasion purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. B. R. Lang (talk • contribs) 16:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] how many followers do theses church have?

Shouldn't we mention how many followers this church has. I think this church is an extended family and they do not allow people to marry outside their church. I think that this church has about some 100 members. Can anyone confirm this and add this to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotogen (talk • contribs) 16:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

WBC is a relatively small organization made up primarily of the extended family of Fred Phelps. "Church" status serves as a tax shelter. The small number of individuals is significant because the small cult of personality has an expanded presence due to hosting over one dozen Internet "hate.com" websites. Describing WBC as a cult and hate group is germane, and simply stating the obvious. The number of individual followers is also important as in the case of Jim Jones' followers who drank the cool-aide as directed by him, and in so doing commited mass suicide. Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

See Drinking the Kool-Aid for added perspective on bogus "church" cults. The number of Jim Jones' followers became more important during the follow-up forensic investigations. Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ottawa Westboro Baptist Church

Hi there,

There is this lovely little Baptist church in Westboro village in Ottawa who's name is appropriately: Westboro Baptist Church which has absolutely zero to do with the American Westboro Baptist Church but unfortunately gets conflated on occasion with the latter. Is there any way to put this fact in the article?--72.1.222.140 (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think "Westboro Baptist Church" should be a disambiguation page. Then each group could have their own article. Geo8rge (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This church is clearly the most prominent use of "Westboro Baptist Church", so I think it should remain at this page. However, creation of a Westboro Baptist Church (disambiguation) would be appropriate if there are other identically-named churches that have wikipedia articles, e.g., Westboro Baptist Church (Ottawa). Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough someone connected with the Ottawa church should set up a wikipage titled with their prefered name. Perhaps "Westboro Village Baptist Church"? To create a page search on the page name, if it does not exist you will see a link to create the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo8rge (talk • contribs) 00:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the replies! The name of the church is officially "Westboro Baptist Church" and not "Westboto Village Baptist Church" but putting (Ottawa) there seems like the perfect idea. However when I click on Good Olfactory's link, Wikipedia won't let me write an article about it. --72.1.222.140 (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the page was deleted before on administrative/clean-up grounds. I'm not positive, but if you want to re-create a previously deleted page, I think you need to be logged in with a username, rather than editing anonymously from an IP address. Try choosing a user name and logging in to do it and it might work. If it still doesn't, I could start the page for you and you could edit it afterwards. I would write the article but I don't have any sources about it, so I wouldn't be much help apart from just starting it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep in mind that in all likelihood an article on a church whose only claim to fame is that it has the same name as Fred Phelps's church is going to be deleted on the grounds of notability. Unless there's something else notable about the Canadian church, I wouldn't bother. - Nunh-huh 21:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
That's very true and is something for you to remember, 72.1.222.140. In other words, unless there are secondary sources which have written something about the Ottawa church and these sources set out some sort of independent notability for the Ottawa church, there's no sense having any information about the church at all in an encyclopedia, which this is. I can't judge that matter appropriately since I know zero about the Ottawa church. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, the article does explicitly state that it is about the WBC in Kansas in the first sentence, so that should help alleviate some confusion. If you can find acceptable sources documenting people mistaking the Canadian WBC for the US, then mention of it might go in the article, even if the Ottawa church doesn't qualify for its own article. - Koweja (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi again! This is an image of the church: [8]. It has been there since 1928. As for conflating the Topeka and Ottawa churches: If you look at the site from a little over three years ago [9], you can see how modern it was, uploading mp3s, photos and keeping it up to date for every occasion. If you look here from six years ago [10], you can see already that people were conflating that church with the one in Kansas and that their position on homosexuality is actually one of the most tolerant (at least when comparing to the regular Baptist position). Today, that nice modern constantly updated site has become this: [11]. All the content has been removed save for that message. So you can see the effect that the Topeka Westboro Baptist Church has had on the Ottawa Westboro Baptist Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.222.140 (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's a problem for them, you'd think they'd just change their name. - Nunh-huh 13:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Well they've been around much longer and have a larger group of parishioners than this Topeka Church so it would be quite unfair for them to change their name due to the mistake of some people (which is why I want to put something in this article about it). It's kinda like the swastika, it's been used as a positive symbol by all kinds of civilizations for thousands of years and one day, one group uses it and ruins it for everyone else.--72.1.222.140 (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Life is unfair. Having to change the name is perhaps one of the least significant injustices imaginable. - Nunh-huh 14:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ta-da!--D'Iberville (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Should we add this

WBC says Iraq War is punishment for homosexuality. Shouldn't we mention the fact homosexuals were stoned in Iraq before we got there, and this [probably] refutes WBC's claim? --69.234.211.105 (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC) What do you think?

If it were true, perhaps. But its not. (or do you have a reference?) Although they might well be in the future. ClemMcGann (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Here is reference: http://www.well.com/user/queerjhd/sxislamictreatment.htm--69.234.192.143 (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid that would be an original research synthesis unless you can find a notable source which specifically made this point in relation to the Westboro Baptist Church's statements. TSP (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, now I'm confused when a source is considered reliable and when it is not...in the meantime, the Koran on homosexuality: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=simple&q1=lust&size=First+100 --69.234.190.231 (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Your source speaks of Iran, Pakistan and others. It does not mention Iraq. Saddam's Iraq was a secular dictatorship. Sharia did not have the force of civil law. I know that homosexuals are legally killed in Iran, Saudia Arabia and other Islamic nations. I am unaware of such an incident in Saddam's Iraq. (or do you have a reference?) - ClemMcGann (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that. It's hard to remember Iraq was secular with all the sectarian violence.--69.234.210.217 (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Quoting the Qumran as a source is insufficient. The Judeo-Christian Bible says "you shall not permit a witch to live". That does not prove current witch-burning - ClemMcGann (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
You're misquoting the Bible there. Here is what the Bible really says: "10Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in a the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 11or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. 12Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you. 13You must be blameless before the LORD your God." (Deuteronomy 18:10-13)
Read Exodus 22:18 KJV - Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
Hebrew Names Version - You shall not allow a sorceress to live ClemMcGann (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay yeah I was checking Deuteronomy. I guess you're right about that Exodus 22:21“Do not mistreat a foreigner or oppress him, for you were foreigners in Egypt." doesn't disprove the racist attitude that is all over the place in America. The thing is, though, we no longer promote the stoning of adulterers in Christianity because Jesus said "Let he who is blameless cast the first stone." --69.234.187.148 (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church#Announced_protests

Shouldn't the sentences in the 'Announced Protests' section be changed into the past tense now that the dates that they refer to are now in the past? I am changing them to be in the past tense, hopefully this is how its done here in Wikipedia. I am not a regular here, but I like to set the sentence structure right wherever I can. :) Cheers! Julyda4th 11:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] YouTube

Does this YouTube channel have anything to do with WBC? http://www.youtube.com/user/FredPhelpsWBC --69.234.192.143 (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Clearly not actually the work of Phelps; some interesting stuff on there, but Youtube isn't generally considered reliable; we probably shouldn't link to this, as it's the work of an unknown party who could put anything on there in the future (and the actual WBC stuff on there is probably copyright violation). Lots of interesting stuff there at the moment, though. TSP (talk) 01:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
It's kind of hard to make a fake video that fools people, but it's easy to lie in a real video, so I can see why. --69.234.190.231 (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ledgers Funeral?

The article says that WBC is going to picket heath ledger's funeral. I thought he was going to buried in Australia? If so, thats a long way to travel to make a point. And I would imagine the customs officials would seize their picketing signs. 125.238.133.42 (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources Out of Date

Half of the sources I've tried to go to are invalid. We need to find some more up to date information -Nightfighter89 (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] God "hated" Esau?

In the caption for the Benjamin Phelps image, a Bible verse is explained to be referring to God "hating a specific person, Esau."

Generally, in Christian theology, God is considered to love everyone and hate no one. However, I am not familiar with the passage as this may be an exception. But it does not seem right to me. Any thoughts? 71.11.215.216 (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Romans 9:13 - 'As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.' I am unfamiliar with the context, but one can look it up in a paper copy I guess. I nicked the passage from an online reader.Avnas Ishtaroth (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is the context: Malachi 1:1-5: "An oracle: The word of the LORD to Israel through Malachi. Jacob Loved, Esau Hated “I have loved you,” says the LORD. “But you ask, ‘How have you loved us?’

“Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” the LORD says. “Yet I have loved Jacob, 3but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals.” 4Edom may say, “Though we have been crushed, we will rebuild the ruins.” But this is what the LORD Almighty says: “They may build, but I will demolish. They will be called the Wicked Land, a people always under the wrath of the LORD. 5You will see it with your own eyes and say, ‘Great is the LORD—even beyond the borders of Israel!’" God was referring to the nation in this sense, basically the nation of Edom didn't have God's favor. --69.234.207.172 (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ref?

CHRISTINA E. WELLS: Privacy and Funeral Protests, University of Missouri School of Law, Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2008-06, North Carolina Law Review, Vol. 87, 2008 - Cherubino (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] site hacked?

Site of anti-homosexual propagandist Fred Phelps of Topeka, Kansas, who styles himself and his followers as a "Baptist Church."-This is what you get when you google westboro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.125.155.103 (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)