Talk:Westboro Baptist Church/Archive 1

message: The legal actions taken by the Swedish royal family is according to the article in SvD not for his comments about Sweden in general, but for his comments about the royal family per se, and then especially his comments about princess Madeleine claiming she being indecent. 
*Out of curiosity - does anyone know what these creatures (I won't have them in the same category as us humans) at WBC make of the United Nations? I can imagine they'll hate it, as they seem to hate everything in the universe, but it would be interesting to know...
*I completely agree with the guy above me, but as this is an encyclopedia, why do we have to start an article about a schurch off with "hate group"?
*Perhaps because these are a group of people who rejoyce when thousands of children die in terrible tragedies and come to funerals to yell vial things at the loved ones of the people that fought for their rights. What the hell should we start it off with? This is a local church that has very good after-school programs?Dan 14:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sweden

message: I remember an appearance by a woman and her children on the Howard Stern show... they were members of the Westboro Church, and in the few minutes I watched one thing that the woman said struck me as an interesting point: "I don't hate fags, God hates fags," or something to that effect.  And yes, Fred Phelps mentioned this subject in an April 2003 interview with BlackTable.com: (Here's the URL: - JesseW 08:56, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Appearance

message: I started some sections to give the article more structure, and made other indicated changes. -Willmcw 08:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Article structure

message: A friend gave me this. Copy and paste this link in to your webbrowser otherwise it won't work http://data.4channel.org/p/src/1104484357896.gif I don't know of its validity. If somebody want to add this to the article, go ahead. If you can't download the image: It's basically a flier by the church that praises the presumed 2000 deaths of Swedes in the recent asian tsunami. As a Swedish citizen I find it highly offensive that goes beyond words, so it would be impossible for me to write an  unbiased addition to the article regarding this. Thanks, Mastgrr 11:29, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This church praises dead Swedes

message: If parodies are encyclopedic and appropriate for an article, should this one include the Landover Baptist satirical web site. --WCFrancis 19:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Landover Baptist is a parody of more mainstream fundamentalist churches. WBC might actually make a good parody of Landover. Guanaco 23:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Parodies

message: Does anyone have a problem with moving this article back to Westboro Baptist Church? If not, the redirect with that name must be speedily deleted first. Guanaco 01:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote Move --Orborde 05:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page name 

message: I find it hard to believe these whackjobs haven't commented on the New Orleans disaster yet. Anyone know anything about that?--Deridolus 23:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Katrina 

message: The article here says WBC wrote a song titled "I Like to Watch," however I thought that that was a song by the Church of Euthanasia. Also, the description of the WBC song reminds me of the CoE's video (careful, it's not at all work-safe). I googled "I Like to Watch" Westboro, but all I got were Wikipedia clones.  
Xen0phile | (talk) 04:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "I Like to Watch" song 

message: I think there needs to be a separate section describing the congregational polity of the Baptist Church. As far as I know, aren't most individual Baptist congregations supposed to be doctrinally independant? Somone reading this article who is not familiar with how Baptists organize might think that there is some Baptist pope somewhere that approves of Fred Phelps and Westboro, while in truth they may not really be affiliated with or accountable to any other Baptist individuals congregations. It might also be good to include a representative quote from other Baptists saying something to the effect of "Many/Most Baptists disagree with Fred Phelps and dissociate themselves from his message of hate" MPS 19:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Baptist Part II

message: Has WBC ever actually professed this "hierarchy of sin"? I can't find anything on a "hierarchy of sin" on Google relating to WBC or Phelps except on Wikipedia mirrors. Guanaco 21:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hierarchy of sin 

message: Can someone explain why the transcript is so fervently being deleted (and referred to as "broken?") It's the church's beliefs in the words of two of its members, which, aside from Phelps, this entry does not have. It's rare for anyone except Fred, Margie, or Shirley to speak in public about their attitudes. For two twenty-something girls (Libby, I believe, might be only 19) to speak out as such, especially as they did, and to voice the contradictory opinion that they want everyone to go to hell, and that they like the pain of others regardless of any holy obligation, deserves recognition.70.242.1.244 06:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The transcript is broken because it is poorly formatted and does not include the questions the girls were asked. Also, where did you find this transcript? We need a link or the name of some publication so we can verify it. Unverifiable content should be removed. Guanaco 07:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't believe the transcript should be included. 1) The transcript is poorly constructed, and what they are saying is hard to understand out of context. 2) No major ideas come across that haven't already been stated in the article. 3) The link to the video already exists, and the conversation with the girls is one of the most minor events of the video. I don't believe that the transcript adds anything to the article that is not already there in a more concise manner. Avengerx 00:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you understand the importance of exposing the lack of unification of thought and theology within the Westboro group. If it can be shown that when the family/congregants of Phelps are not being directly led, taught, or told what to say by Phelps or one of his high-ranking children are subject to their own anxieties and inability to think for themselves on the issues at hand, then this would be a significant feature of the Westboro group. Distingusihing features often make it into an article, because here at Wikipedia, we try to expose the truth rather than cover it up or attempt to stifle it. We are all adamantly aware of the thought of Phelps but light is rarely shed on his "lesser" children and especially his grandchildren. His grandchildren are a part of the church as well and your request of omitting this video and any content within is tantamount to the undermining of the very principles Wikipedia stands for in the quality of articles. --68.110.21.142 13:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transcript 

message: I don't think so! I think they have some things in common with the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, which is led by the British Commonwealth's fiercest Royalist, Ian Paisley of Ulster. What
do you think? - (Aidan Work 06:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cult is not a POV view. Of course the members aren't going to term it a cult; does that mean that no recognized cult can be called so because the members believe that it is not? What about Jim Jones, was he not a cult leader? The Westboro Baptist Church fits the dictionary definition of a cult to the 't'. I vote for the proper terminology on the page.Avengerx 19:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Given the negative connotations of the word cult, I can understand the need to be careful of what is called a cult and what is not.  However, just because a word has negative connotations does not automatically make it a word that can not be used to describe things.  If a cult is characterized by extreamist views, by an authoritarian leader with people living in unconvential manner, then yes, by the standards of society from which Westboro opperates, it is clearly a cult (not sure what other standard we would use).  Thus I agree with Avengerx, cult is the terminology we should be using. Granite T. Rock 01:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The word "cult" is obviously POV. There are many definitions of "cult". Wikipedia has no definition for "cult", although we have an article about the topic we are not a dictionary. For this reason I have removed it yet again. Rhobite 00:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rhobite, the word is an English word with obvious meaning and according to ANY dictionary you read, WBC falls under the category of a cult. There is a majority of people within the discussion who have agreed that cult is not POV. If you do not like the definition of the word, I suggest you appeal to the makers of dictionary to alter the meaning. I am going to revert, and we can discuss the a possible change here. Avengerx 00:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dictionary definitions are irrelevant to this discussion. Dictionaries give broad definitions, they are not prescriptive language guides. Dictionaries are useless in most debates and arguments. The question we should be asking is whether there are negative connotations to the word "cult". The answer is yes. Therefore we must attribute any statements accusing them of being a cult. We cannot state it as a fact due to the NPOV policy. Truth is not an exception to the NPOV policy. Rhobite 01:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Are you at war with the dictionary establishment? Regardless, the negative connotations that follow the word 'cult' are natural. There are obvious negative connotations with words like 'facist' or 'dictator', but we still must use them when they apply. While the members of Westboro Baptist Church may not feel that they are a cult, but 99% of the English speaking world does. If we took into account the feelings of every person and group covered in Wikipedia, we would have Charles Manson and Jim Jones protesting their status as cult leaders. Catch my drift? Avengerx 01:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm just tired of people who think that dictionaries provide "true definitions" of anything. All terms with negative or positive connotations should be used extremely cautiously in Wikipedia. Since the word "cult" is negative and poorly defined, we need to be very careful about using it. As I said dictionaries provide broad, unusable definitions. Anti-cult groups typically have checklists, none of which are authoritative or widely accepted definitions. Also this has nothing to do with hurting WBC's feelings, it is simply a requirement of the NPOV policy that we use neutral language. Rhobite 03:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're still avoiding my line of reasoning based upon the fact that if WBC isn't a cult, what is? Your logic is that we shouldn't refer to them as a cult because it has a negative connotation. The actions of the WBC are all worthy of a negative connotation by society. Under your line of reasoning, the People's Temple shouldn't be called a cult because that would involve a value judgement. Nothing can be described completely without bias or opinion; especially when it comes to sensitive topics such as religion. However, if an overarching percentage of society believes that something is deserving of a negative connotation, it is indeed academically appropriate to note that in an encyclopedia entry. WBC is a cult by dictionary definition, and by common concensus. Your logic is obviously flawed as per my People's Temple example. What say you now? Avengerx 04:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also flawed logic to say that since we call People's Temple a cult, we should apply the label indiscriminately based on a dictionary definition. Let's stay on the topic of this article. I do not think there is a consensus to call WBC a cult, either on this site or in the media (media coverage of WBC usually refrains from using the term). I also think the language in the People's Temple article should be modified to say that the group was universally recognized as a cult, rather than stating that they were a cult as a fact. Rhobite 15:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps instead of labelling WBC as a cult, perhaps instead it should be stated that WBC is compatible with Dictionary X's definition of a cult.  That is at least NPOV and perhaps factual (unless you want to dispute that it doesn't meet the definition as in Dictionary X). To pull things back a bit, I guess the broader question is, do we exclude words from Wikipedia if they have a negative connotation? We clearly do not allow derogatory terms except under special circumstances (such an entry for such a term).  But is this true of all words with a negative connotation?  And if so, what would the threshold be to make a word "negative". Granite T. Rock 19:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would respond by saying that dictionaries are not good sources for resolving POV disputes. We do not exclude words from Wikipedia if they have a negative connotation - but we do require that their use is cited. It is fine for the article to mention notable people and groups who have accused WBC of being a cult. However Wikipedia can't state, as a fact, that they are a cult. That is POV. Rhobite 20:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, fast reply.  I got a conflict edit when I went back to clarify what I was saying.  Perhaps a good reference to read on this is [NPOV - Characterizing Opinions of People's Work].  Just as we allow words with positive connotations into wikipedia in a certain way, should we not do the same with negative connotated words?  Thus still stating WBC is a cult in the context that it is a widely viewed opinion (but perhaps not fact) would be IMHO the best way to go.  So perhaps something to the effect of "WBC is considered by many to be a cult" or "Many people attribute cult-like attributes to WBC...." Granite T. Rock 20:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: But it isn't a widely held opinion. As I mentioned above, most news articles about WBC don't use the term "cult". I think it would be best if we cited specific people and organizations who believe that WBC is a cult. Rhobite 21:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Westboro Baptist Church a cult?