Jump to content

Talk:Westboro Baptist Church/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

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: [1]. 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 [2], 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 [3], 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: [4]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)


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)

Military Section

Was a section on their beliefs on the military removed, or is it just missing? I seem to recall that being part of their core beliefs, carrying signs that read "Thank God for IEDs" in addition to the "God hates fags" signs. 98.176.236.30 (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

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
They're anti-Christian because they hate other Christian sects and denominations. And because they essentially hate everyone. Demosthenes, blog 16:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Who, Hitler, check it out, dude. Please stop confusing individual people with vast multigenerational social groups ect. 67.160.174.24 (talk) 13:39, 16 August 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)

Westboro should be described as a "Self-proclaimed Baptist Christian Church" and it should be pointed out that the larger Christian bodies of government (such as SBC) do not recognize them. Westboro does not preach Christian doctrine. They are a cult (if defined as followers of an unorthodox, extremist, or false religion or sect who often live outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.) The truth of the matter is they even hate Christians who do not follow their extreme and unorthodox doctrines.75.203.84.95 (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

To add to this, I agree that although the Church claims to be Christian, a lot of what the do and preach is not at all in line with what Christianity is about. I would agree that the label of "Self Proclaimed Christian Church" is in order as it is hardly factual to pass off The WBC as Christian. Dr Legitimate (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of the quotes in this section were fucking comedic gold. Thanks to whoever found those.

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)

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)


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)

Their website seems to be the same. I would guess it's a description Google have added. I've not seen them do that before. Truthmonkey (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Google didn't add it, it's from someone who added it into the dmoz open directory. --Darkdan (talk) 05:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Oldham

  1. ^ Grieving family forced to deal with Phelps. 'The Capital Journal. (August 3, 1994).

I've removed the above as it doesn't seem that notable, maybe it could be utilized as an example elsewhere if really needed. Banjeboi 00:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think those should be removed and converted to content and references in the parodies section instead. Banjeboi 00:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

How about adding www.godhateswbc.com to the list of parody sites? It's been around since 2005.Friskyfountains (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Most parody sites probably aren't notable. As a minimum, we should have a few reliable sources covering the parody sites to indicate some degree of notability. Otherwise, I could have a dozen sites up and running by the end of the day - none of which would help the reader better understand this subject. Rklawton (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Article split?

This article is getting quite large, it may make sense to split off a chunk into a separate article. As a suggestion I think something just on the funeral picketing would work as it could include several sections including the announced protests and reactions. Banjeboi 00:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What I'm suggesting is that these individuals don't deserve the publicity of an article in the first place. As for splitting the article, I cannot agree with this idea. The larger and less readable the article is, the less likely it is to be read. In the case of the Westboro Baptist Church, I am fully in favour of obscuring their intentions through limiting their scope with a sickly large article. Swamilive (talk) 03:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't here for publicity but to share knowledge. Many of the subjects we write about have detractors and critics but we don't censored and we don't purposely create bad articles as a reflection on those subjects. If you're unable or unwilling to add constructively to improving the article then it's probably wise to move onto subjects you feel more willing to improve. This article is here and will be improved. Banjeboi 20:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I think perhaps either removing some of the activities section or moving it to a new page might be a good idea. Or just include some of the more notable activities as other religious organisation pages don't tend to have a huge list of activities. BananaNoodle (talk) 09:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Should the WBC sites http://godhatesfags.com and http://godhatestheworld.com be added to external links?

Makes sense, they aren't linked anywhere else. Rklawton (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

India

This Church wastes it times. Since the Church has the divorce rate of secular society, than they are wasting their time with going aganist homosexuality. Gay people only represent 2%-3% of the society.

What this church must realizes that is God considers gay/lesbian sex as a sin on a laundry list of sexual sins. That means God considers divorce as a sin as being gay as a sin. Since the Jesus spoke aganist divorce, should we focus on that issue than worry about homosexual problem. God treats divorce and being gay as the same.

What this show is that this church ignores the bible and maintains hostility towards a group where divorce is considered sin in God eyes as homosexuality.

Until they lower that number, than stop put so much hate aganist gay people. Your quest to purify America is limited to a small segment. The church needs to spend significant and very significant time on strengthing marriage than speaking about gay people. If God exists, than God would consider that more interested in a lowering that divorce rate than worrying about gays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.153.117 (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC) WBC has a God hate India site: www.godhatesfags.com/written/fliers/20080627_god-hates-india.pdf

So... How does this have anything to do with the article? Sounds like some useless ranting to me. --Kermit4Prez (talk) 05:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

its true our ranting friend has drifted from the point somewhat - but isn't there some way we can point out the inconsistencies between the group's ideals and the those expressed in the book they claim to follow - as our ranting pal points out
and er no one wants a frog for president ~k) kyle mew 10:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylemew (talk • contribs)

Ottawa dab

I removed the hatnote about the church in Ottawa...the page doesn't even exist.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 22:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Murder of Tim McLean

August 08, 2008 -- The WBC announced plans to picket the funeral of Tim McLean, a 22 year old Canadian man who was murdered on a Greyhound Bus travelling from Edmonton to Winnipeg. McLean was stabbed multiple times before being beheaded by his attacker and his body mutilated. Though Stockwell Day has instructed Canadian Customs Guards to refuse WBC members entry into Canada, several did manage to enter and are currently in Reddeer. They intend to travel to Winnipeg to protest at McLean's funeral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhenn (talk • contribs) 21:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Shirley Phelps-Roper agreed to call off the protest after reaching an agreement with the hosts of the Dean Blundell Show on The Edge on August 8th, 2008. They requested that instead of picketing the funeral, she should call them where she'd be given airtime to vent. The agreement applies to any further protests they plan within Canada. Asidity (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Fundamentalist Christian?

Even though the article about WBC's plans to picket the funeral of Tim McLean says WBC is a fundamentalist Christian church, I think this should not be mentioned in the article. As the vast majority of Christians who consider themselves fundamentalists don't recognize the WBC as a Christian church, there is considerable doubt about their status as fundamentalist Christians. Any opinions on this? Canjth (talk) 01:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I definitely hear what you're saying but to a degree we must allow groups to self-define. For example, Messianic Judaism exists as an article subject, despite all denominations of Judaism not accepting them as any part of Judaism. I agree that it must be qualified with references that Westboro are a) condemned by others self-defining as fundamentalist Christian; b) that the group are not a part of any Christian denomination; and perhaps c) inconsistencies between Westboro's ethos and that of fundamentalist Christianity. Best, A Sniper (talk) 02:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you, but for now I'm going to change the wording in the introduction to a generic "religious organization" which is NPOV and appropriately describes the WBC without making a controversial assumption about the nature of the organization. If such sources as you mention are found then they should be added to the article. Canjth (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point made. "Fundamentalism" is a word that provokes a knee jerk reaction in most Americans. 'Anti-Catholic', 'Anti-Gay', Anti-Socialism' etc. Most Americans have this view of "Fundamentalist", who for the most part are simply Americans who have views of the Bible which they believe as true but cannot be demonstrated as true to a modern public.Johnwrd (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

since when was wikipedia written for the sole use of americans? look up the word "fundamental" and decide if it applies - don't just write according to what you think the american knee-jerk might be.
saying that i do agree with what you are saying about the wbc - and seeing how they appear to be manipulating this page for their own ends, i think we have every right to be pedantic about word usage - one thing occurs, and that is, can we change the word "church" to "group"? - kyle mew 10:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylemew (talk • contribs)
Let's go a step further and not call them a church at all! Let's call them what they are: a family of lawyers. 207.238.52.162 (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Phelps edit

A user is attempting to remove information on Phelps contained in the lede with the edit summary being that there is an article on Phelps, therefore the info doesn't have to be contained in this article. In my summary upon revert, I mentioned that this information is referenced, and that it is certainly not out of step with other articles on religious leaders and their denominations to have the line blurred and similar information contained in both. Best, A Sniper (talk) 04:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

How is Phelps' criminal and ethical record relevant in any way to his founding of the church? He incorporated the church in 1969 and was disbarred in 1979. So if he had or hadn't been disbarred, he still would have founded the church. His disbarment was not for church activities. There's no interaction between the two, so please remove the labels. WillOakland (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of chronology, Phelps' law firm is intricately linked with his sect. The fact that Phelps has been convicted of perjury and has been disbarred goes to credibility and context, as long as it is properly referenced. Best, A Sniper (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Concur with removal. It's a true pice of information, and it's cited, but I don't see how it's substantially relevant to the topic of the church. If it does speak to his credibility as a leader or the church's possible interactions with such activities, need some cite that actually makes that connection. Have to avoid unsupported insinuation or by synthesis and WP:COATRACK. DMacks (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that Phelps was in fact disbarred, so please drop that as an issue. You'll notice in WP:NPOV that there is a warning against opening an article on someone with "X was a bad man." This is the same sort of thing, except that it's not even the article on the person, so all the more reason. Someone who wants to know about Phelps' history outside of his church activities can just click on his name and find out far more than could ever be included here. So please remove the labels and let the links do their job. WillOakland (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Although I don't think that the information leads to the conclusion that Phelps is a bad man, I do think that it states a couple of facts. I also believe that Phelps Chartered was synonymous with Westboro. However, please go ahead and remove it if you feel it is necessary. I would think it is still relevant within the article. Best, A Sniper (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
It would be relevant only to the extent that the article can explain the relevance. WillOakland (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Vermont marriage, Iowa divorce

{{edit semiprotected}}[to replace the paragraph that states a federal judge granted a divorce to the couple in question; Federal courts have no jurisdiction over marriage so the paragraph was incorrect on its face] Members of Westboro Baptist picketed churches in Sioux City, Iowa after Woodbury County District Judge Judge Jeffrey Neary granted an ordinary divorce to Kimberly Jean Brown and Jennifer Sue Perez, who had entered into a civil union in Vermont. Judge Neary later vacated the dissolution and amended his judgment to state that the union never existed. Sioux City Journal, January 22, 2004. Mdharnois (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

WBC to picket the funeral of Obama's grandmother Madelyn Payne Dunham

http://www.godhatesfags.com/written/fliers/20081104_madelyn-payne-dunham-funeral.pdf

also:

WBC TO PICKET FUNERALS OF FOUR SCOTT HIGH SCHOOL CHEERLEADERS (AND TWO OTHERS) KILLED IN CAR CRASH IN EAST TENNESSEE FRIDAY.

http://www.godhatesfags.com/written/fliers/20081028_scott-high-cheerleader-funeral.pdf

Drjoebl (talk) 06:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Number of members?

I don't see a figure giving the number of Westboro Baptist Church members anywhere in this article. Is it unavailable?MaximCHS (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was curious about that too as well as the source of income for the church and their travel expenditures, and perhaps a picture of the church itself. Шизомби (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The Louis Theroux documentary said most members were in the extended family and later stated there were less than 100 members . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.153.4 (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently heaven is going to be quite empty then :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swollenmonkey (talk • contribs) 16:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

won't that make them happy? - kyle mew 10:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylemew (talk • contribs)

Westboro interaction with Vancouver

Since this article is locked, perhaps someone can add this latest news on Westboro. Here's the CBC's news story on the Westboro Church to where they had planned to protest a play about the death a gay student in Larmaie. The threat of the protest sparked protests in Vancouver, British Columbia. 24.79.89.7 (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Additional ref

There was an article in the Globe and Mail about members protesting at a play at Uxbridge Secondary School, in Ontario. It probably warrants mention, especially if the group does cross the border for the protest. Mindmatrix 23:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Better source for barring of UK Protest

Current reference for WBC being barred from entering the UK to picket the play in Basingstoke is from The Sun. I can't find this information on the BBC or other slightly more reputable new sources. If anyone has a better reference, it'd be appreciated. Current reference: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2250721.ece?OTC-RSS&ATTR=News?r=yahoo Stormx2 (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I inserted this section, and the reference. It is a developing news story, and sources are slightly thin on the ground at the moment. Sadly, the BBC haven't reported on this story at all so far - make of that what you will. I will add further sources as they report the issue. Sibruk (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's rather silly to ban them. They announce their protests in order to provoke a response; in this case they got one without even having to go to the expense of an airplane ticket. Most of the protests they announce never take place - one suspects that this is their strategy, and they are more in the business of announcing protests than actually protesting. - Nunh-huh 22:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

WBC are now admitting that they have been banned from entering the UK on their own website - http://www.godhatestheworld.com/unitedkingdom/government.html - but they link back to The Sun's website as the source, so I won't add that as a source just yet. The British Borders Agency or probably a UK Embassy in the US has probably also advised them of the ban, but this isn't referenced on the WBC site. WBC seem quite nonplussed about it, which probably suggests that they weren't ever seriously anticipating on coming to the UK afterall. Nunh-huh: I don't agree, the fact that they have been banned from the UK puts out a very clear message that incitement of hatred is not tolerated in the UK. I totally agree with the government's decision, and am actually pleasantly surprised. I'm going to stop there, however, because POV discussion like this is not what Wikipedia is about. Sibruk (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the ban isn't entirely displeasing :) I just think more would have been accomplished by ignoring them. And think how much more fun it would have been to have them turned back at Heathrow, than warning them ahead of time :). - Nunh-huh 00:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have added a new source - The Daily Telegraph. Sibruk (talk) 10:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Also now added BBC news source. Don't know whether three references is too many, if so, maybe The Telegraph should go - the quote itself is taken from the article from The Sun. Sibruk (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

WBC are categorized under Holocaust denial. Does describing the holocaust as "probably miniscule compared to X+Y+Z" make them holocaust deniers? Karpouzi (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Having read their... rather bizarre statements, I would say that they aren't Holocaust Deniers. What they actually say is: "The richly deserved death of 6 million European Jews at the hands of an angry God taught these hard hearted, stiff necked, rebellious people nothing."[5] So they aren't exactly denying it, but rather claiming the Jews deserved it. That's a primary source though... Dendlai (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Saying Jews deserved it, while certainly vile and despicable to the highest degree, is not the same thing as saying it did not happen. Aleta Sing 17:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. They are holocaust supporters, not deniers. They're in favor of it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
fair point but if i were researching holocaust denial, i would include these "people" and their opinions - kyle mew 10:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylemew (talk • contribs)

Events in Buffalo of 23rd February 2009

http://www.buffalonews.com/258/story/586891.html?imw=Y Flutterfury (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Flutterfury

Why no References to The Protesting of the Australian Fires

Hey, Why are there no references to WBC attempting to protest at the Australian fire memorial recently? I Know they never actually showed up - for reasons unknown to me, but I suspect that they were either blocked by the government or were scared off by the sheer volume of counter-protesters - but they certainly made their intention to picket the fires very, very clear. 80.6.147.175 (talk) 09:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

They didn't attempt a protest, they merely announced they were going to protest. It's not at all unusual for WBC to announce protests that never materialize - they get the publicity without any of the expense. The "deterrent" to an actual protest was probably the cost of airline tickets to Australia. The WBC family will make short, inexpensive trips, but don't often undertake long, expensive ones. - Nunh-huh 10:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
we need fewer links not more - this page has got out of hand and unwittingly we are spreading their hate for them. - kyle mew 10:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylemew (talk • contribs)

Article revamp

This article needs considerable work. It should be encyclopedic, but what it appears to be is a platform for this group to promote their message by repeating it verbatim. Just as we don't detail every product a corporation produces or every lawsuit it has won/lost, we need not do that here, either. However, before I more forward, I'd like to hear what other editors think. Rklawton (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

i agree but people don't seem willing - we could make a start by changing the word "church" to "cult" which i feel is more accurate - kyle mew 11:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

New lead photo

  • New Lead
    New Lead
  • Previous Lead
    Previous Lead
  • Alternative
    Alternative

I definitely like the lead photo on this article now more than mine that was previous lead, now in the body. That said, I think it's wrong for the lead because it seems to want to make a statement more than it wants to illustrate the article. I chose my photo of just one of Phelps's brood because I thought it gave a singular demonstration all in one shot: their main messages, the loneliness in ideology, and that their views are anti-American (hence, she is holding an upside down flag). I had other photos of the protest, including ones with groupings, but I always thought the simple photo was good as the lead because it represented them on their own terms. I often came close to cropping it, but I left it because I felt the space around her implied how isolated are these people - how they stand alone for their views and antics. The lead now is a wonderful shot. I love it, and it should be on this page and a few others. But my concern for it as the lead for Westboro is that it seems POV - one could argue it is far more about the men kissing than it is about a "church". It would be unthinkable to have a photo of people throwing condoms at parishioners as the lead image for St. Patrick's Cathedral, New York. The kissing photo is a great, high quality illustration of all the issues involved. But the lead, in my opinion, should be an unambiguous portrayal, without distraction, of the article subject. Regardless - it's an excellent photo; I'm impressed. But I think it's more appropriate in the body. --David Shankbone 04:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is as much about the group as people's reaction to the group, and the "Gay Phelps" photo illustrates that better than the other two. Rklawton (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Not really. That's not how we usually approach articles on here. This article is primarily about a church, its members and its history. The current lead makes it equally about the institution AND people's reactions. Every article has "reactions" to an article subject; but very few make the reaction the primary lead photo. It's pretty POV. --David Shankbone 21:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Bigots abound. The "church" wouldn't be notable if it weren't for the reaction it gets. Rklawton (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with David. The lead photo needs to be mostly demonstrative of the church and their members. AniMatetalk 22:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Following that logic, then, we should just use their logo - as we do with most organization-oriented articles. Rklawton (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
That's a possibility too. Do they have a logo we can use? AniMatetalk 22:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) WBO are ALL about the reactions they get, which are unanimously negative. Is there any reliable source that isn't entirely negative, and about the negative reactions they get? Hence a lead photo that shows that reaction seems more NPOV than one that shows WBO as they would like to be seen. A lead photo demonstrative of the church and it's members would be more POV. Dendlai (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: I can think of a lot of small independent churches with the same message - "we're right, and everyone else is going to hell" - specifically homosexuals, Jews, Catholics, and Muslims - right down to the notion "if something bad happens to someone, then it's a judgment from God." What differentiates WBC is their public vociferousness. Rklawton (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose my objection to the photograph is that the WBC members can't be clearly seen. The two couples in the foreground are crystal clear, the members are not. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a picture that gave visual parity to both protesters and members, but think as this is titled Westboro Baptist Church that we should actually be able to clearly see members of the Westboro Baptist Church. AniMatetalk 23:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
That's exactly the problem. The church members aren't even in focus. For groups and organizations, I believe that the lead photo should be of their headquarters, e.g. Focus on the Family. Logos for religious groups don't serve the same purpose, I think, as they do for corporations. That's neither here nor there. Whatever their goal is, that's not the point of the lead. The lead is to reflect the article as best it can. As a pretty well-known gay man on this project, I find it hard to argue that the most appropriate lead photo is of two men kissing, with blurry Westboro weirdos in the background. It's just not the most appropriate at the open. In the body, of course. --David Shankbone 06:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
A photo of the church building - or the ubiquitous"god hates fags" logo work for me. Rklawton (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

As the image of the counter protest is NPOV nightmare (seriously, it looks like something Conservapedia would do on an article about an organisation they didn't like) I have moved it onto the section about the counter protests, added a few more images here and there, and replaced the lead image with a picture of Fred Phelps, preaching. He's the founder and the leader, and what better image for an article on a church than an image of its founder and leader preaching? J Milburn (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional media coverage

Do we really need a list, or can we just summarize this to give readers a better understanding of the international scope? Rklawton (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Activities and statements

This section is also pretty long. No doubt their website already contains a detailed list of their activities, so I don't think a long list here is useful. Can't we just summarize the scope of their activities by location and type?

"Statements" are already addressed in the "Views" section. With this in mind, we might consider renaming this section "Protests" since that covers a lot of ground. Rklawton (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


Unsure of your reason to alter, and basically remove, that section from the WBC page. I didn't quite understand the reason for that section's title ("Announced Protests" seemed fitting for basic entry in "Activities and Statements" due to similarity in content), but I don't see how it can be used to arrive at the assumption that such listings were "to provide a list of announced protests" - instead, I assumed it be used to indicate those that were announced/planned and possibly had not occurred or had yet to occur. Note the wording used in those entries: "WBC threatened to"; "the church declared intent to"; "announced they would".
In other words, it seems that your objection to those entries was based on their potential of use to promote WBC, even with positivity. I'd hope that a concentrated re-reading might leave you with another opinion.
Those listings provided details on actions and statements by WBC that continually made the news, to the point of their being of current history status.
I submitted the last entry to that category, and because it was in today’s news. It also includes reference to other notable and wikied names. Regroce (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
WBC announces thousands of protests a year, and many of those make it into the news. This is why WBC has an article at all. There's no need to list each protest here when readers can simply follow the link provided. Moreover, none of the wikied names led to articles about the protest. At best, the links led to the event or organization WBC planned to protest. Certainly maintaining a current list of future events would be problematic, and it's something we generally avoid.
We might say that if a protest is covered by enough sources, it should have an article. We might also say that such an article should be merged with the WBC article instead (where I would be in favor of not including it). To avoid a circular argument, we might make the case for creating a "List of notable WBC protests" and then only include those which garner national or international coverage. Even so, I don't think we should include in this list any "announced" events - unless the announcement itself is covered extensively in the press (as opposed to a simple mention buried in an article). Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps "activities" or "protests" be subcategorized in general themes of those protesting activities? ie, protests against military; protests against gay topics. Maybe cite/detail the most recent/most notable in each? Or include mention of those protests in proper categories of "church views"?
Also, there may also be some duplicity and improper categorization here and there; for example, "Activities & Statements" includes mention of two counter protests, and while "Responses" includes a subcategory on "counter protests."
It would be simpler if WBC didn't engage in so many so frequently. Regroce (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. Let's see what you've got in mind. Rklawton (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Nathan Phelps

something to include to the article Nate Phelps Estranged Son Of Fred Phelps Speaks Out Publicly (haven't got the time for this, sorry) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.234.177 (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Nathan isn't exactly a great authority on this. As much as I hate WBC, I'm pretty sure Nathan's not a good source. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

UK 'least wanted' list?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/8033319.stm This story says "FRED WALDRON PHELPS SNR & SHIRLEY PHELPS-ROPER American pastor and leading spokesman of Westboro Baptist Church. Considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by fostering hatred that might lead to inter-community violence in the UK" has been banned from entering the UK for the above reasons. (Hypnosadist) 14:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

former members of westboro baptist

I have done a good bit of research on this church. It was mentioned that several people are no longer members. It is a fact that Shirley's son Joshua Phelps-Roper is no longer part of the church. I am not sure if he was kicked out or left voluntarily. Likewise, Charles and Mary Hockenbarger and their son Karl are gone. Apparently Karl was disfellowshipped after getting into an altercation during a picket. I am not sure what happened with his parents but they dont appear to have any desire to return to the church however Karl does. His wife remains a member. I also think some of Karl's children were kicked out of the church. I had read that Chris Davis, the husband of Rebekah Phelps-Davis was no longer a member. I was not able to find anything stating he had left the church and I dont think it's very likely that he has. About a month ago, Libby Phelps, Fred Jr.'s daughter, left the church. She stated that she was not kicked out but left on her own. According to Libby, her family stole her car and then lied to police about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.89.198.54 (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless you have a source for that, it's all your own original research, and it can't be included. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I once read an newspaper article about Joshua, who now lives in Canada and wants nothing to do with his former family. Would have no idea where to look for it now, though. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Not Wikinews

I object to editors treating this article like an extension of Westboro's own website. This is not the place to list each of the church's past or planned protests. This article should simply summarize the nature of the group, the nature of its activities, types of legal disputes, and so on. Creating sections on or lists of each of their activities runs afoul of WP:NOT (among others). We should work to trim this article down to a more appropriate size. Rklawton (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The way to deal with an article full of encyclopedic information is to split the information to more articles such as Protests by the Westboro Baptist Church so we retain notable information and the main article does just "simply summarize the nature of the group, the nature of its activities, types of legal disputes, and so on.". The information you deleted on the churches new targeting of Jewish institutions is very relevant and should be on wikipedia (this article is a different question). (Hypnosadist) 15:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Adding sections detailing protests and statements made by this group are certainly notable and relevant - and they are not violation of Wikipedia's rules. There is no commentary (I've removed the criticism of the protests) and it is not original research. I have reinstated most of my contribution.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC))
If we take that approach, where does it end? There are literally thousands of articles from reliable sources reporting their tens of thousands of protests. Rklawton (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
We won't run out of paper. (Hypnosadist) 17:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I hardly feel that the addition of this to the article will be as apocalyptic as you believe.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC))
I agree with Hypnosadist that there should be a separate article about all the notable protests (with arrests or injuries), Protests by the Westboro Baptist Church, and with Rklawton about the scope of this article. Yours very sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
There was an article similar to the proposed Protests by the Westboro Baptist Church article called Targets of Westboro Baptist Church but it was deleted. The same thing would eventually happen to the Protests by the Westboro Baptist Church page.--Millionsandbillions (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Rklawton; the article is currently too detailed and too long. I don't think that for a tiny provocateur group like this it's necessary to list their view on each world religion and each protest they engage in. Tempshill (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
and i agree too - this article is far too long considering how irrelevant and small this group is - the article is even longer than the CND's (a worldwide protest group). members of the WBC have every right to edit this page but does that mean that we allow them to turn wikipedia into their own personal blog? this article needs to be of proportionate size. i am happy to help but think we may need admin to stop the constant reversions that i see in the history here. anyone wanna help?

kyle mew 10:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylemew (talk • contribs)

The Laramie Project

I removed the following: "The church has picketed, or threatened to picket, productions of the play The Laramie Project, which was based on the murder of Matthew Shepard, whose funeral they also picketed.ref http://www.godhatesamerica.com/ghfmir/fliers/oct2005/20051018_university-of-michigan-laramie-project.pdf "WBC to picket The Laramie Project fag play...", October 18 2005 /ref" The link had gone sour. It would be fine if anybody wants to do some research and add info about this kind of picketing into the article, with good sources. The church was barred from entering the UK to do a picket of the play. I'm sure more data can be found by anybody interested. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

When something needs updating, the solution is updating, not deletion. When a reference's link "goes dead", and a substitute reference cannot be found, the appropriate action is to mark it as dead, not to remove it. - Nunh-huh 03:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
[6] Reliefappearance (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hate page

Is it possible to add a page that extends to a summary of all the anti sites of the WBC that depicts about 10 or 11 summaries of ones that are depicted at external links and ones that aren't. So as to show some views and reasonings behind these sites, extent (not just like a link that goes to a page that just says "I hate WBC") and some physical action they did (i.e. antipickiting) without reading a complete article or having to traverse to the website.--Flynn M Taggart (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wiki isn't a collection of links. Unless each of their sites is independently notable, I would say that no, we shouldn't build that sort of article. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • are we not giving these "people" more than enough attention as it is? after all they are a tiny group, and organisations/churches hundreds of times their size have far shorter articles here - i know we write about everything but some proportion is needed, surely? i am sure we are all aware of their attempts to control this pagekyle mew 10:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylemew (talk • contribs)

POV

An editor has changed "homosexual" to the "preferred" term "gay." This has already been discussed in Wikipedia. The Wikipedia article is Homosexuality not gay.

WBC is described as a "church" in the lead in the article. Someone reverted the term church to "group." Why must this church be described as a group? Student7 (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Or, the Wikipedia article is gay, not homosexuality. We have both. On the issue of which is to be preferred, see Terminology_of_homosexuality. Most style guides that make recommendations recommend the former, not the latter. "Homosexual: Avoid this term; it is clinical, distancing and archaic. Sometimes appropriate in referring to behavior (although same-sex is the preferred adjective). When referring to people, as opposed to behavior, homosexual is considered derogatory and the terms gay and lesbian are preferred." (Safe Schools Coalition). "Gay: synonymous with homosexual, and on the whole preferable" (The Guardian style guide). Etc.
More concerning, we have an editor who doubts that signs that read "God Hates Fags", "God Hates America", "Thank God for AIDS", "Thank God for 9/11", "Fags Die God Mocks", "Got AIDS yet?", "FDNY in Hell", "Fags Doom Nations" or "Fags Die God Laughs" are appropriately described as provocative. Interesting. Try searching for "Fred Phelps provocative signs"... [7] [8][9]- Nunh-huh 12:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it not possible to incorporate the information under 'Other legal responses' in with the 'Legal issues' section? What does everyone else think? BananaNoodle (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved following section here because it is unsourced (per WP:BLP).
In 1993 Phelps Sr., Timothy Phelps, Jonathan Phelps, Margie Phelps, Charles F. Hockenbarger, and Karl Hockenbarger were brought up on a variety of criminal charges stemming from information gathered following a raid on Westboro Baptist Church. The trials that followed saw every member of WBC over the age of fifteen testifying in the defense of their family and fellow congregants; over 100 defense witnesses were called in all. Timothy Phelps, Charles F. Hockenbarger and Karl Hockenbarger were all found not guilty. Jon Phelps was found guilty of witness intimidation and misdemeanor battery. Margie Phelps was found guilty of filing a false report and Phelps Sr. was found guilty of disorderly conduct as defined by aggravated intimidation of a witness. All three lost their appeals. All six filed lawsuits against the city and took their cases to appeals court, where their lawsuits were dismissed.Lionelt (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

How many people belong to this church?

I don't believe the article states how many people belong to this church. It is important that the member count be in the lead of the article in order to emphasize the church's place in the world. I seem to remember reading that it consists of Fred's family and the number of members is under a dozen. If this is true, I'd be comfortable pronouncing them among the top 10 provocateurs in American history, on a "media coverage per person" scale, based on the enormous undue weight that the media seems to continuously give to their actions. Could someone find a reliable source and add the member count to the intro? Tempshill (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

How about we just skip all the bull and call them what they are "racists" Thank you :)

24.32.160.198 (talk) 04:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

this is more than just racism - these people's hate knows no bounds. why do we allow them so much room here? they deserve a few lines, of course - but they are turning this page into a blog - - - kyle mew 10:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylemew (talk • contribs)
It's worth documenting WBC here in detail, if only to distinguish them from Christians. There are other groups calling themselves "Christian", such as the LRA, which would not be called Christian by any other Christian group. It's surprising just how many apparently educated people will point to a group like WBC and say "Look, that's what Christians do". Best to keep a bright light shining on them, for anyone who wants to find out why a "Baptist church" would picket a funeral. Per Ardua (talk) 11:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
then we need to change the word "church" to "cult" and point out that they call themselves christians but other christians do not - Kylemew (talk)

To answer the question, I believe WBC has stated that there are 70 members of the church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.255.3.24 (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Westboro_Baptist_Church/Archive_7&oldid=1089899962"