Talk:Westboro Baptist Church

Quick Edit

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

Allegations of racism section removed

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 Parts were unsourced, and most of it was based on a source which is simply not reliable, the unpublished manuscript "addicted to hate".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 An unpublished manuscript is not a remotely reliable source.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

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

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

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

Exactly. This editor removes citations that are beyond what s/he has explained here, such as this one. Restoring again. CovenantD 17:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the talk page. There are a number of sections I have been removing, and I will list each of them here, so they can be discussed seperately. If you disagree with just one of them, as you apparently did above, do not revert all my changes, but rather replace the individual sections you believe are sourced. The following are a list of the sections I am removing, with my reasons for removal:

• "There is absolutely no salvation outside of Westboro Baptist Church. Therefore, it is a sin to offer any type of aid or support to anybody or any human institution in the world except for WBC". This is unsourced.
• "Westboro holds a vision of the apocalypse which is unique to their theology and based heavily on point #6 above, that when the end of the world comes, all the souls of men and women will be brought into a celestial courtroom with God presiding as judge. Westboro envisions the souls of humanity (aside from themselves, who in their view are the only elect of God) as being reduced, in their own words, to "sobbing little girls knowing and getting what they deserve". God will then call forward his "expert witnesses" — Westboro's congregants — to testify against the sins of all humanity and thereby be instrumental in getting the souls of all mankind (save for themselves) cast into Hell. [1] This source does not justify the above. It doesn't justify the "unique" claim, and it only in part justifies the final sentence. The source claims that WBC will bear witness that catholics are blah blah blah, the text of the article goes far beyond that into original research.
• "Phelps has been accused of preaching that black people were born of Ham, the son of Noah, as a punishment for ridiculing Noah and that black people are therefore the "servants of the servant" (meant to be subservient to God's people, i.e. Westboro).{ref|addicted} (Ironically, before his disbarment, Phelps was a civil rights attorney)" The source for this is the utterly unreliable and unusable "Addicted to Hate" manuscript.
• "In the 1980s, Phelps was a regular guest on Scriptures for America, a program of Christian Identity teachings, hosted by Peter J. Peters. Tapes of Phelps' appearances on the show, as well as tapes of his regular sermons, are sold in Christian Identity mail-order catalogues.{ref_label|addicted|15|a}" Another section sourced by the unusable "Addicted to Hate".
• "In a 1994 interview, WBC members Timothy and Jonathan Phelps (sons of Phelps Sr.) admitted to beating their wives and children as a means of discipline and "keeping them in line". (Phelps Sr. suggested this early in his ministry - see the Fred Phelps entry for details - and his estranged sons state that they, their siblings, and their mother were often victims of domestic violence)." This is unsourced.

This has been linked to a special printed by the Topeka Capitol-Journal, who have stated that they would refuse to print any and every detail of the Phelps and give them press (I believe this was around 2000). Despite the missing printings in the local paper, they decided to dedicate an information site regarding the Phelps, at the overwhelming request of the Topeka residents. In the case of "Addicted To Hate" which was somewhat sponsored by the paper, during the timeframe the article was being written, the TCJ has shifted leadership. The new leadership scrapped the publishing at the last minute, as to not "open a can of worms" and avoid legal troubles from the family. This is a reoccuring nightmare in Topeka, it's often claimed by locals that the city is quite literally "afraid of the Phelps family", due to their skills in court (I am a Kansas resident). Nonetheless, in 1994, they printed a very special section on the Phelps family, including testimonies from the two sons who departed from the family, Mark and Nate. I might add, this should not be stated as a fact (ie: Fred Phelps is a child abuser), but as an accusation (ie: In 1994, Mark and Nate Phelps claimed Fred Phelps, Sr had abused them as children).

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

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

Other Christian groups

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

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

Hmm, it doesn't seem that way to me. The sentence as written, to me, seems to be saying exactly what it is trying to say, that even fundamentalist christian groups which believe that homosexuality is a sin oppose WBC's theology and practice. --Xyzzyplugh 22:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the sentence sounds more like it is saying that it is somewhat of a surprise that they don't agree with them. But I can also see what you are talking about. Maybe we should change the "even" to "including"? 69.40.248.127 01:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see your point. "Including" does sound more neutral and objective. I'll let you make the change. --Xyzzyplugh 14:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Well, if the Bible is the main common source of doctrine for christian denominations and all the scriptures admitted into the bible were chosen based on mainstream orthodox doctrine, then you can cite Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:33, I Corinthians 6:9-10 etc. I think the onus is more on citing which denominations don't consider homosexuality a sin than those that do, as those that do are in the vast majority.

Since it's such a vast majority, perhaps you will do me the favor of citing them. 72.144.71.193 04:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not to say that they hate homosexuals - the variance on the doctrine is usually that some denominations say "love the sinner, not the sinner", and others just plain hate the sinner. I hardly see how it can be refuted that homosexuality is considered a sin in general by christianity. 202.81.18.30 03:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Is heterosexuality a sin? The Bible has an awful lot of prohibitions on heterosexual relations, so by the same token, I suppose heterosexuality is a sin. Darn! 72.144.198.53 08:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Heterosexuality is not a sin, adultery is, whether it's of a homosexual or heterosexual nature. The Bible has claimed that homosexuality in and of itself is a sin. Nice try. 70.190.171.52 07:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Recreational sex is the "sin". Procreational sex, within the bounds of traditional marriage, is a sacrament. All homosexual activity is, by definition, recreational, and thus is "sinful". That's how traditional religion sees it. (I don't necessarily agree with that philosophy, but that's the explanation.) Wahkeenah 07:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That's one view - you have no citation to show that that's the majority view. The Protestant denominations with which I am familiar are not opposed to recreational sex at all, citing some epistles where Paul instructs married couples to engage in intercourse regularly lest they be tempted. Therefore, your dichotomy cannot explain things, even if true, and it's not sourced to boot. You may have a prejudice regarding what Christians believe, and jumping from that prejudice to what "traditional religion" believes is not warranted. 72.144.198.53 00:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately, it's only the talk page, so I don't have to provide one. And everything conservative Christians have to say about recreational sex of any kind is damning. Wahkeenah 04:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to provide a cite per wikipedia rules, only those of intelligent discourse. Bowing out so soon? And you don't know conservative Christians if you think that all conservative Christians are opposed to recreational sex. Do you think conservatives don't have fun, or what? When you demonize a group to such an extent that you can't attribute normal human behavior to them, you're far from the truth. I would suggest that as a matter of not embarassing yourself in a public forum, you find citations; otherwise, this discussion is not even appropriate for a talk page. It's unintentionally funny for someone to post on a talk page (which is intended, after all, to improve the quality of the article) and not be willing to back those comments up at all. If the world is solipsistic, then by all means, cite your own opinion. Otherwise, be willing to take some disagreement. 72.144.198.53 07:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Next thing you'll be telling me is that they don't believe in women submitting to men. Wahkeenah 07:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

And that the Catholic church opposes birth control pills just because of fears they could cause cancer. Wahkeenah 14:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Your use of the term "they" is pretty loaded with meaning. They are the Other, to be hated and feared, and certainly not to be understood. You have no factual basis for your views (mainstream Christianity thinks women should submit?!), so it's probably best you not comment on this. I am sure there are many subjects where your expertise is helpful, but this is not one of them. 72.144.198.53 22:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm telling what I've observed over the years. If you don't think Baptist is "mainstream", I don't know what to tell you. So it's probably best you not comment on what it's best for me to comment or not comment on. Wahkeenah 23:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Baptists are only one of literally dozens of "mainstream" Protestant demoninations - and, of course, Catholics are mainstream themselves. To say that "mainstream Christianity" is whatever Baptists believe would thus be a massive fallacy. Furthermore, even the SBC does not claim that recreational sex is prohibited, so even your example falls flat on its face. I did research; you didn't. There's the difference, I suppose. Please stop embarassing yourself. 70.146.75.89 22:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Changes to intro

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

This article is not the place for speculation that WBC is "really" pro-American. They say God hates America, and that they stand with God. We should say what they say, not second-guess it. - Outerlimits 01:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

That is of course true. But the nature of their anti-Americanism is not simple. It is contingent on America's perceived support for homosexuals. This reason is not within the usual gamut of anti-Americanism. (After all, many people can be anti-homosexual and still pro-American. There seems something odd about the WBC that they can't balance that -- and this is what I think should be addressed.) They are not simply anti-American, so that a link to Anti-American would suffice. It's extraordinary, way out of the ordinary, for any supposedly religious group to make protestations at the funerals of returned US war-dead. The notation requires, in my view, some elaboration: eg, they're only anti-American in so far as America supports ... or in that America denies ... whatever (something inevitably to do with homosexuality). You know, I believe these people are wrong. But because I believe they are wrong, I also believe that the more truthful, more accurate, and the more unbiased this article can be, the more any reader will come to that same conclusion. So npov Wiki + me are together. MacMurrough 01:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I would be sure to say that they consider themselves anti-american, and not say that they are. And say why they consider themselves anti-american. A quote from Phelps or the church would be nice. And if we don't use a direct quote, then be sure to say something along the lines of "what they perceive as America's pro-gay bias" or something. Tell a queer that America is supportive of alternative sexualities and see if you don't get laughed at. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 01:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that not all anti-Americans are alike hardly needs to be glossed here. The notation that would be most helpful to the reader would be to note that their thought processes are disordered, and their view of America and its armed forces as supportive of gays does not accord with reality. But Wikipedia can't make such judgments, and since the fact that their thought processes are disordered is so obvious that no external source is likely ever to say so in so many words, we remain unable to say it. To suggest that "they're only anti-American in so far as America supports gays" is wrong, naïvely suggesting that they understand their own motivations, and that their explanation of those motivations should be taken at face value. In fact, the WBC imputes support of gays to America so they can hate it. They will conceptualize anything they hate as supporting gays, regardless of the reality, in order that they may have theological support for their hatred. Thus God Hates America, God Hates Sweden, God Hates Fags, God Hates Canada, and Phelps loves the publicity that comes from speaking as if he could accurately divine what God hates. The WBC's God is a seething ball of hatred that originates in the pit of Fred Phelps's stomach, flees out his mouth, and brings back tributes in the guise of press clippings. It is the WBCs psychotic inability to accurately perceive reality, and an inability or unwillingness to bring their behavior into accord with that expected by most civil people, that underlies their bizarre qualities. But none of that belongs in a Wikipedia article. - Outerlimits 02:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I get all this. I'd do it myself but my broadband is off (and wbc has gone all video lately), but it used to be the case you could hit their site and find out immediately why they're anti-America. The quotes would all be there, the citation would be in your browser. Nobody's asking for an inference to be made. Only for them to damn themselves in their own words. They used to have pages and pages on why America was damned. Couldn't one of yez just go there and get the damned quote, plus citation (which would be the web address) and we'd all be happy. It would then be their words that they're anti-American, not ours, and we wouldn't have to discuss it at all. MacMurrough 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Edited to add, and why they hold that view. And then again [a further edit, in case anyone is watching] the place to look would be www.godhatesamerica.com, not gadhatesfags.com. MacMurrough 03:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about WBC having gone all video lately, as I haven't checked their website in a while. However, if you want to find old versions of it, the internet archive will have plenty of old versions of their site. http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.godhatesfags.com --Xyzzyplugh 13:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Cult

is this "church" a cult?

No question about it.

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

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

Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Cult.2C_sect —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patstuart (talk • contribs) 02:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

The word "cult" is a null. It is generally used as a means to incite, though the basic meaning is simply "a system of religious worship," which fits any and all churches, especially Christian churches. It's only the last several decades in which the term has had any psychological index at all. Critic-at-Arms 2 February 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's kinda funny though...but yeah, probably shouldn't be here. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?}

I entirely agree(d) with it..... --Annon 8 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.106.221.56 (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

This was an accurate redirect, I hope that "church" catches on fire one day, and is RAZED into the ground with the twisted deamons that are a part of that cult. The sickos use friggin children to promote their messages from hell.

Other protest group

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

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

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

YouTube

YouTube

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

Since when should YouTube not be used as a source? If the link to the video is relevant (i.e. it has an interview or some other material that is difficult to find) then a video link should only serve to strengthen the article. Finding transcripts of interviews on the net is difficult. Besides, the rules are guidelines, they're not set in stone.If a video is on there and it's clear that it came from a specific channel (you can see the watermarks usually) then I think it counts as reliable.

Now, I don't think YouTube should be used primarily, however they happen to be the biggest and most popular video site around, not much you can do about that.

And if it's copyright you're worried about, perhaps most of the pictures in this article should be removed, unless you have the permission of the original owner of the intellectual property. Most of them, from all over this site, seem to be up in the air. By that logic, half this bloody website infringes on copyright everyday, and no one seems to care. Why should YouTube be the exception? Chewbacca1010 10:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, didn't your momma ever teach you that two wrongs don't make a right? CovenantD 23:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Care to explain how this has anything to do with what I've argued? Refute my points if you can. Chewbacca1010 08:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Spam

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

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

Requested move of Westboro

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

Sky Television report

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

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

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

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

the comment Westboro_Baptist_Church is full of fags in the intro

seems like someone just put that in there as a joke

Reference and/or Purpose section all screwed up

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

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

Delete this

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

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

VANDALISM ALERT!

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

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

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

This article contains irrelevant information

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

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

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

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

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

Hyper-Calvinism

I've removed reference to Hyper-Calvinism. It's true that Fred Phelps was accused of Hyper-Calvinism, but this, as the reference makes clear if you follow it, was by a small-fry pastor during a fairly high-blown debate. Just because there is an internet reference to a name-calling does not warrant an inclusion of that name-calling in a Wiki introduction of a living person. For all I know Fred Phelps and his church is hyper-hyper-anything-you-want, but a proper reference is required to prove it. I've also changed, in the next paragraph, "supporters of gay rights" to "supporters of gay people": gay rights seems a far too loaded term for this context. (Apologies if this note has appeared twice. Problems with dial-up.) MacMurrough 01:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Many people think that a Hyper-Calvinist is just an excitable, outspoken, Calvinist. However, the fact that he is out on the street preaching shows he is not a Hyper-Calvinist. In any case, HCs seem to be a pretty rare breed these days. GuyInCT 20:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That depends on how you use the term "hyper". Wahkeenah 20:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ford Funeral

I'm writing from Grand Rapids... I had read on their website that they planned to picket at President Ford's funeral both in Grand Rapids and Washington, but haven't heard nor read nor seen anything about it... Has anybody seen anything other than on their website?216.120.133.154 18:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• If they had, they likely would have been arrested, which I'm sure they would have loved, but there might have been folks with guns there, two, which would put a crimp in their plans. Wahkeenah 18:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No NPOV, no worldwide view, too much irelevant information

It's a mess, a chaotic dump of phelps' statements against USA and a review of all their activities with all details. I suggest a complete rewrite - in ideal the article would equally shed light on the Churches opinion on Homosexuality, other religions, war and politics. The info on the colour of Phelps van or the interview of Libby and Jael may all be interesting, but they lack relevance, it may better be up simply linked.InTeRnAzI 11:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• What's stopping you from improving it? Wahkeenah 11:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• "It's a mess" Have you seen the WBC web site. The trivia and gossip are the best parts, don't change a thing. If I wanted their opinions I could go to their web site. Geo8rge 20:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"Invasion" by *chan members?

I seem to remember hearing something on 7chan's (now defunct) Invasion board about WBC; something about spamming free UPS boxes in huge quantities to the Church's address... Does anyone remember hearing about this or know if it ever happened? --Kenjoki 02:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I know that there was a planned 4chan raid. However, decent sources for such a thing almost certainly do not exist, so it would be best to give it a miss. J Milburn 21:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hate Group

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.

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!

• 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)

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

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)

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))

Similarities to the Christian Identity movement

The Christian identity movement, CIM, is primarily a white supremisist religion. While Westboro might be accused of being crude and not PC, they are not white supremisists. I personally think this section should be cut out, or differences with CIM, which are many, should be posted.

I agree. It is a misleading and pointless paragraph. I patched it up a bit to make it less misleading. GuyInCT 03:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The United States is the true Israel.[15] I read the citation and I do not see this. It does say "Israel (America) is doomed". What they seem to be saying is that a bible lesson about Israel should be applied to the USA.

"Jews are "filthy" They do not seem to say this. They do seem to claim that Jews were somehow allied with, or helpful to, or tolerant of Homosexuals during the 1930s leading to their persecution. I do not see the term filthy being used.

It should be noted that WBC arguments usually start with opposition to homosexuals and end up with other groups like Canada, the US military or Jews. They do not seem to be fixated with those secondary groups like Jews. The CIM is fixated on Jews, among other groups.

Geo8rge 01:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok it is a Hate Organization if we cant tell the truth we need to delete and protect this article, thank you

I suggest that this article be renamed to avoid further confusion the Canadian Church

Rename this article: Westboro Baptist Church (Topeka KS) Geo8rge 01:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Nobody's ever heard of the Canadian church, so no need to change titles. 64.122.31.130 00:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

citations on list of slogans

I added a bunch of citations to the list of slogans since there was a request, but unfortunately, the convienant, obvious citation, thesignsofthetimes.net, doesn't list all the slogans they've used (like the three in this image, for instance), which means that I ended up tagging entries individually, very cumbersome. — Laura Scudder ☎ 04:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest listing the quotations by wbc web page so you only have to cite once. Wikiquote might be a better place to put quotation lists. Geo8rge 19:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

BLP

The name of at least one child is mentioned, and the photograph of a child is shown. Both are unjustifiable BLP. (Whether the names of adult members are not leaders and who have not been charged with crimes is BLP is a harder question.) Please give a reason not to delete or crop the photograph. The caption actually calls attention to the fact that the photograph of a child is included. DGG 04:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh? How is showing a picture of a child a BLP problem? I can understand a possible BLP concern with mentionign a name (although if the name is sourced there isn't a BLP issue althoug there may be a WP:DICK issue). What am I missing? JoshuaZ 04:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you please identify that the child is, in fact, living right at the moment? --Darkdan 05:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Aside from that, this so-called church put that kid in a public place, so they have no basis for complaint if someone takes a photo and publishes it. Wahkeenah 05:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The "church" has no ground for complaint, but the child will--or at least I certainly hope so. There is a particular problem with all photographs and names of children, who cannot give consent, but it also applies to other innocent bystanders used in a possibly derogatory context, sourced or unsourced. Appearing in one of this groups picket lines is a possible derogatory context if there ever was one. Just crop the photo and change the caption. I do not know how to do that myself, or I would have done so. Why argue when it can be fixed? And I notice that there were some earlier questions by others about the use of names of member of the church. There is of course no problem with those who seek publicity for themselves. DGG 06:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What's the specific wikipedia policy that's at risk of being violated? Wahkeenah 06:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is WP:DICK. If the kid isn't adding anything to the picture then it isn't unreasonable to take it out. If I have time tommorow I'll try and make a cropped version. But to be clear, there is no actual policy or legal reason to do this. JoshuaZ 07:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That "policy" you mentioned is strictly subjective and basically a joke, so it has neither meaning nor applicability, here or anywhere else. In fact, it would appear that removing the kid from the picture amounts to POV-pushing. Wahkeenah 13:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Pushing what POV? JoshuaZ 19:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

A personal opinion that kids should not be shown here, even though there is no wikipedia policy against it. And there is a compromise: His face could be blurred to avoid recognition, while making it clear that it's a kid (or a midget). Wahkeenah 00:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be against policy to be wrong. It feels sketchy publishing the name of a kid being used by this group. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with not publishing the name. But if he's in a public place, put there by these characters, it's fair game. Here's why: Someone might suppress the picture and then someone will challenge the claim that they are using kids. The picture is a primary source verifying that assertion. No names, though. Wahkeenah 18:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying the picture's out, but a name is in my opinion totally unnecessary. — Laura Scudder ☎ 02:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, the name does not belong. And the face could be hidden. Cropping smacks of McCarthyism. Keep in mind that it is this church doing the exploiting of these kids, not the one who takes their picture or publicizes the fact that the church exploits kids. The kids should be protected, but not ignored. Wahkeenah 02:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the current technique is to blur that portion of the image. DGG 05:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

A blur, a swirl, a black square, any of those would be OK, perhaps with a comment that the child's face is covered as a courtesy. Wahkeenah 05:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with redacting the image, but it comes from their Web site where they've placed it in a public area. It doesn't actually do Wikipedia any good to edit the image after-the-fact, since it's still visible in its original location, and frankly I think that putting her image on their site does more harm to her than putting it on Wikipedia. -Harmil 21:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably so, but if some kind of suit comes down against them for exploiting children, at least wikipedia shouldn't be a party to it if they hid the child's identity. Wahkeenah 23:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What Kind of Baptist?

The article originally claimed they were Independent Baptist, but now it says primative Baptist. On Phelps personal page it still calls them independent. I've look at several independent Baptist sites and find no mention of WBC. Exactly which, if any, Baptist tradition do they belong to? They seem to be more Calvinist than anything else.--Dudeman5685 01:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

WBC describes themselves in this page, they use all those terms. WBC in their own words. I know of no independent theological examination of WBC. Geo8rge 01:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, they get their facts wrong: the Five points of Calvinism were not Calvin's own summary, but came after (and in reply to) the Remonstrants. A.J.A. 02:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

My son thought there was a Remonstrant under his bed last night, and got scared. I told him to be calm, it was only a Calvinist. Then he really got scared. Wahkeenah 03:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I do not claim to be an expert in this matter. I have just had a lot of experience in working with many churches in different capacities, and with churches of many denominations including the Catholic church that I was born and raised under. This is my first post, so i hope I do the topic some justice. The funny thing about the Baptist demonination is that there are many differnt "splinters", if you will. While there are baptist churches who belong to registered groups, such as the SBC (Southern Baptist Council), Some churches decided to become "independent bcptist" where the hierarchy is somewhat flip flopped from what one would expect. For example: In the catholic church, the Pope essentially has the final word on the practices of parishes around the world. Then cardinals, arch bishops, bishops.... etc. One of the differnces in the baptist church is that the local pastor/reverend has the say as to what the church believes. This can also be put to a board or committee of elders. There are many, many, many, differnt variations. However, most Baptist churches avoid the "top down" form of rule in an effort to maintain their autonomy. Another key component is that Baptists believe in Baptism by water. (The majority of Christian and Catholic denominations feel the same way). Baptists, along with the bulk of Cristianity, believe that the Bible is the word of God and that the Bible is the final authority as to how to worship, live, and so on. However, all of these differnt denominations were created by people who had a slightly different interpretation of the Bible. But, i digress. St. John, one of the disciples closeest to Jesus, next to Peter, was called John the Baptist because he would literally baptize people in a river. (The Jordan I believe.) As a matter of fact, he baptized Jesus. So, ther is your first Baptist =P

This question is practically irrelevant as I suspect they are lawyers with an axe to grind over free speech rights (disguised as hyper-Calvinists to avoid trouble and to get local governments to regulate real churches and religious rights). So they are likely to not have a true, organized religious affiliation. 207.43.79.22 20:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure?

Is everyone sure this isn't a hoax? Abeg92contribs 18:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Nothing is certain in this world. Wahkeenah 23:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that what these people are doing goes beyond "hoax." Lines have been crossed. Explody 07:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Explody

• If someone exercises their Second Amendment rights against them someday, then we'll know. Wahkeenah 09:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Second Amendment is the right to bear arms, not shoot people. I think you are talking the WBC too seriously. Geo8rge 12:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    • More to the point, the right to defend themselves. Groups like the WBC often justify their actions on the grounds of "free speech", but the First Amendment is not about verbal assaults on individuals, it's about speaking out against the government. If the verbal violence continues against these individuals, some of them might decide to defend themselves against it. Wahkeenah 14:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Verbal violence does not immediately endanger someone's life and no court in the country would consider killing someone over some harsh words to be self-defense. I'm a proponent of the 2nd amendment myself, but it's never an excuse to commit murder.67.160.103.72 12:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Yeah. What he said. The fact is that "rights" only matter when used by people you are opposed to. Shoot them and you make martyrs. LAUGH at them and you make them mad. 64.122.31.130 00:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• • I'm fairly certain the only "hoax" in this case is their status as a church. I wish the Associated Press and other media groups would get in the habbit of calling them "a group which identifies itself as Westboro Baptist Church." 207.43.79.22 14:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Dates

The article is a little hazy on the history of the church and how it came to be set up. As far as I can gather, Phelps was a highly respected lawyer in the 1960s and 1970s, and received an accolade from the NAACP for his civil rights work as recently as the 1980s. Fast forward to 1993, and it seems Phelps is now pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church and his God Hates Fags campaign is in full swing. There's a pretty big gap there. 217.155.20.163 21:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

There really is no source for that info, if you really want to know contact them. There might be some old articles in a microfilm archive somewhere. Legal case histories are probably obtainable tooGeo8rge 14:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

hyperlinks

just a little note - the hyperlink to godlovesfags.com is incorrect, with a Q instead of a G and there doesn't appear to be a website godlovesFAQs.com although maybe there should be LOL

please can someone edit this to correct the hyperlink? it is in the "Responses" section.

also, why not add a link to the BBC page about the Louis Theroux show, as it has video clips on it - http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctwo/noise/?id=louis_theroux

cheers!

82.32.207.59 23:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC) have I signed that right?

I'd second that nomination for a link. Anyone else care to comment? mattbuck 09:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Theroux already has an extensive wiki page with plenty of info and links to BBC Two. Geo8rge 14:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sweden.

In the article it says that Phelps and his church hate swedes because at swedish judge sentenced one of its members. In fact its because Åke Green, a swedish minister was sentenced for "hets mot folkgrupp" (defamation of a minority) after a sermon where he called gays "a tumor on society". The sentence was later changed to not guilty by the swedish supreme court. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.71.123.2 (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Ah, my bad. I remembered it was something to do with sweden...

And on the subject, I reverted the following addition:

"Thank God for the Tsunami. Thank God that 2000 dead Swedes are fertilising the ground over there. How many of those 2000 do you suppose were fags and dykes? That's the way the Lord deals with His enemies. And the Lord has got some enemies. And Sweeden heads the list. You filthy Swedes. YOU FILTHY SWEDES!!!!"

It wasn't cited, and the ending certainly sounds fake. mattbuck 09:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No that is real, I've heard the audio before...I'll try and find a reference if possible Aristeaus 08:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Consolidating the article

I moved some paragraphs around under common headings. I did not delete anything. I hope it made the article easier to readGeo8rge 17:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

VT Shootings

WBC is planning on picketing at the funerals of VT victims. Can anyone cover this?--66.142.39.61 13:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If they do, that's liable to trigger further violence. Wahkeenah 14:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, they announced their picketing at their site. http://godhatesamerica.com --24.123.108.198 17:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If nothing else, this might result in some action against those evildoers. I'd like to see their little group try to stand up to an enraged student body of 25,000. Wahkeenah 17:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, it didn't happen. I was on the verge of organizing the 300-mile trip to counterprotest with whoever was willing to rent a greyhound. I haven't heard much about it, unless the media's ignoring it to move onto other things, since that's all these people need - media attention. Zchris87v 03:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Kudos to you for at least thinking about it. Wahkeenah 03:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Counter-protest?, June 19, 2006

A protest against the Westboro Baptist Church was held in the vicinity of the WBC compound on June 19, 2006. It was organized by Bob Cutler, a resident of Topeka. Biteboy, a Florida band was brought in to play a concert at a neighbor's house, who claims she at first hesitated, as she claims she has been harrassed by the Phelps family for 46 years. The band was able to play through one song, until the Topeka Law Enforcement ordered the band to stop playing. They said the band was in violation of a city ordinance and they had recieved a complaint from the Westboro Baptist Church. Shirly Phelps-Roper later denied such a complaint was made and authories again had confirmed that it did come from the WBC. The protest was then moved to a nearby tavern. During this protest, there was no reports of violence or injuries.

Source: http://cjonline.com/stories/061906/loc_antiphelps.shtml

Baptist infobox

Regardless of what people think, the church proclaims itself to be baptist. It practices baptist church polity and some theology. Its members have to be baptised as adults in order to be church members. It has a congregational church government style (in theory).

And since the church is famous, it deserves to have a baptist infobox inserted. 95.9% of Baptists will be offended by the church's declaration of being baptist, but them's the brakes.

The article has a link to Independent Baptist and King James Onlyism as well.

The infobox should also give readers of the article the chance to check out what real baptists believe.

--One Salient Oversight 12:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

John the Baptist and the Apostle John were not the same man. Wahkeenah 16:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Although I would agree that the infobox should stay, perhaps adding a note saying something to the effect that The westboro church is only considered baptist to its own members would be a good idea. Darknessgp 02:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The Christian Baptist movement does not subscribe to their ideologies. I may be able to call myself the President of the United States but that does not make me President of the United States. I think that it should be clearly stated that the Westboro Church is only considered baptist by it's own members. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.162.52.244 (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Delete. I think it's offensive to real Baptists that the Baptist infobox is included on this page. The WBC calling themselves Baptists is not a good enough reason to include it. There's no socialism infobox on the Nazism page. There's no Catholic church infobox on the David Bawden page. There's no "Presidents of the United States" infobox on the The Presidents Of The United States Of America page. Self identification is not enough. Delete the infobox! 129.55.200.20 15:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

KEEP yes they are offensive to real Baptists ,christians in general, or anyone who has any decency but that alone is not enough reason to delete it. Besides i think it's handy so their belief can be compared to other Baptists Harlock jds 15:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

KEEP So it's "offensive" - okay, fine. Specify on the wiki that their practices likely deviate from most accepted Baptist thought (I'd imagine?), and leave it at that. It's ridiculous to not include something because it's offensive. (Now, if they truly don't follow _anything_ in Baptist ideals, I take that back - but I don't know a whole hell of a lot about Baptism off the top of my head.)Exigence 22:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

WBC's Web Site Missing?

Is there a good reason why the WBC's web site is not listed in the links? It's a pretty offensive site, but it is relevant to the article.

Site -> http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/index.html

-- WiccaWeb 20:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

you're right. this page says for links see fred phelps, and that article says for links see this page. wtf. -Indolences 16:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

edit: I went back all the way to November on both articles and there have been no links since at least then. -Indolences 16:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement

The word "fag" is a contraction of the word "faggot" (or, "fagot"). When traced through its etymological history, the word "faggot" simply means "a bundle of sticks used as fuel." See dictionary.com and thesaurus.com (where such words as "fuel" and "brimstone" are used as synonyms). "Scholars" can't decide when such a word began to be used in reference to homosexuals, so we'll give the answer here: "I have overthrown some of you, as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and ye were as a firebrand plucked out of the burning: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the Lord." Amos 4:11. The word translated "firebrand" is the Hebrew word "uwd," which comes from a Hebrew verb meaning "to rake together" (or, "to gather together"). In short, the Hebrew word "uwd" is talking about burning sticks of wood that are gathered together. That is what the English word "faggot" means. Amos 4:11 could just as easily be translated "...ye were as a faggot plucked out of the burning..."

Someone want to straighten this out? It sounds like they want to burn gays at the stake. And yet, Thou Shalt Not Kill. --Jnelson09 00:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Another statement

I forgot the exact wording, but I read that they said their purpose is to make people hate God. If someone can find that, they better put it in the purpose section right away. --Jnelson09 00:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Where is the link to the wbc-homepage? can someone put it in?

God hates PS3???

In the list of signs used, "God hates PS3" and "Fags play PS3" are included. These signs aren't shown on the link, and everything I can find on Google is using Wikipedia as it's source. Vandalism?

Removed. -Indolences 17:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That had been added, deleted and re-added between April 23 and 25. Somebody claims they saw it on a protest sign once. That's not exactly verifiable. Wahkeenah 17:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

More than likely it's some nintendo fanboys vandalizing. -Indolences 19:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, maybe we need to get the WBC's opinion about wikipedia. The publicity should be good, either way. :) Wahkeenah 17:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is vandalism. Not that this is a reliable source, but someone[2] on Yahoo Answers claims there are signs that say 'God Hates PS3' from Westboro Baptist. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 16:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Mormon thing

For the anti-Mormon thing, you can use the statement about the Qur'an as a source where he talks about the Book of Mormon (the statement come from here), or there's these two accounts [3] [4] of the What's Wrong with the Mormon Church? lecture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.138.87.114 (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Note

To all who think "God hates fags". I would like to apologize for my fellow Christians comments saying this, because God hates no one. God hates the sin, not the sinner, meaning He loves me and just as much you. -Yancyfry

History and Politics

Seems I once read that Phelps' daughter was on the Topeka city council and they were friends (or at least political acquaintances) with Al Gore? If anyone has this information, it would be good for the article, if no other reason that the irony...

Oh come on. Use your head. 71.35.128.144 17:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Website

Once again, I'll bring this up: This offensive group's web site is relevant. Circular references to the Fred Phelps article is just silly. The Web address is relevant. Show a good reason for its removal or I'll just put it back. WiccaWeb 05:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Are they really a "church"?

Let's be sure they're really a church before we call them as such. Like what was said above, are their services mainly hoaxes? Do they really have a congregation that meets regularly (because it would seem to me all of their active members are on the road on weekends and are NOT in Westboro, Kansas).

Let's make it very clear that these people are not truly Baptists but are most likely disguising themselves as such to get around U.S. tax codes and to lampoon theological Calvinism. 207.43.79.22 14:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

And, does church have to be capitalized on second reference? The author is lending them too much credit! 207.43.79.22 14:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If you believe they're dodging taxes and/or satirizing Calvinism, cite sources for it. I don't think you'll find many editors in their corner. That said, dictionary.com's fourth definition for 'church' is for a Christian denomination, which may have the word capitalized. I'll grant that they're not exactly expounding ideals or attitudes I'd find consistent with Christ or Christianity in general, but unless we can site specific sources, we're off on our own. San Diablo 16:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Though, as it happens, the capitalisation is in breach of the Manual of Style in any case:

* Generic words for institutions (university, college, hospital, high school) require no capitalization:

* Incorrect (generic): The University offers programs in arts and sciences.

* Correct (generic): The university offers …

* Correct (title): The University of Ottawa offers …

so it should be replaced with "church" whenever used alone (but not in 'Westboro Baptist Church'). TSP 22:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

In Louis Theroux's documentary he attended a "sermon" and it was implied that is was a weekly event. I suppose it could have been put on for the documentary but I think Louis would have cottoned on if that was the case. Tomgreeny 00:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected, TSP. Thanks. San Diablo 00:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! I'll be looking around for some info. I had an interview with Phelps once and I'll see if there are any dead-giveways there. 209.55.80.148 18:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record they meet all the minimum standards for being a church in Kansas, they do not accept donations so there is no tax angle I can see. There is evidence of avoiding some property taxes but that is probably chump change. Geo8rge 19:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Geo8rge. I'm sure a lot of non-religious groups may also qualify under Kansas law, too. It's a common scheme. BTW, the following is an article showing that they are a family of lawyers with an axe to grind. The article is from Thursday and appeared in papers across the country via the Associated Press:

"they are a family of lawyers" - Please see the info on Phelps Chartered. Geo8rge 02:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think they are a church in the same way hitler was a rabbi.70.72.162.9 03:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

They might no meet your definition of a church but to the extent that US law is governing they are a church. Geo8rge 02:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

>>OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — A member of the Kansas group that has drawn criticism for protesting at soldiers’ funerals has been arrested for letting her 10-year-old son stomp on a U.S. flag during a demonstration. She promised Wednesday to challenge the state’s flag desecration law in court.

Note: Westboro typically does not stomp on flags or burn flags at rallies when in states that are more tolerant of flag-burning. 207.43.79.22 20:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeremy Kyle Discussion

This morning (05/06) spokeswomen from the Westboro Baptist Church discussed their controversial view points on the Jeremy Kyle Show. They suggested that the Virginia Tech Massacre was a cleansing act of God and that the awful actions of 9/11 were "good". I have never heard something so appalling in all my life.

God is love, forgiveness and truth.

What these people were allowed to say on public TV made me extremely angry.

• • I saw this as well. It is discusting.
  • Don't let them kid you. They're not a real church, as I am attempting to prove above.207.43.79.22 20:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Michigan law passed because of WBC's protests

[5]. Please add this under the "legal" section... protests are required to be 500 feet from funeral in Michigan, passed last year as a result of WBC. --66.227.194.89 20:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Un-encyclopedic content?

The paragraph in here doesn't seem encyclopedic to me...

"Even from a neutral perspective, it is undeniable that the group is racist, homophobic and anti-semitic. If God hates anyone, it is likely to be the members of Westboro Baptist Church." Ebudiu 04:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be personal opinion; I've removed it. TSP 10:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"Homosexuals and lesbians"?

I have replaced both incidences of the above with 'homosexuals'. There is a widespread misconception that the 'homo' part of the word relates to men and therefore the word means men who have sex with men, whereas in fact it is 'homos' which is Greek for 'same' and therefore homosexuals have sex with their own sex (something of a no-brainer, since heterosexuals have sex with the opposite sex), i.e., lesbians are homosexuals and are therefore included semantically in the word 'homosexual'. It is arguable that as a reference work, Wikipedia should use language which is consistent with proper (and logical) usage, not the usage of the dictionary-shy. Iantnm 18:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Law's Prohibiting Funeral Protests

Can someone with power please remove the apostrophe?

Also, mention is needed here of the 21st June 2007 UK Channel 4 tv show "Keith Allen will burn in hell", which profiled wbc.

I've removed apostrophe Jru Gordon 07:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added in information about the show Keith Allen will burn in hell. Have left the swearing uncensored. --Dayfox 12:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)