Talk:Westboro Baptist Church/Archive 2

message: As per this decision: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Racial_and_political_views_of_the_Westboro_Baptist_Church
I have done a crappy half assed job of merging the above article into this one.  The Other Prejudices section where I put it now sucks, and should be rewritten in my opinion.  But at least it's merged.  --Xyzzyplugh 21:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged Article Into This One 

message: I've just marked the Other Prejudices section as subject to an NPOV dispute.  This content was largely merged from the former article Racial and political views of the Westboro Baptist Church.  To see some editors' concerns about the former article, read the debate on Articles for Deletion.
 
:I removed the Anti-asian Prejudice section entirely as it was especially bad.  There was no documentation of the claim of anti-asian prejudice, and the one quote used wasn't even an example of anti-asian prejudice, but rather an attack on american businessmen.  I've seen no evidence of anti-asian prejudice anywhere coming from the WBC.  They criticize asian nations, certainly, but then they similarly claim "god hates canada", "Sweden is a land of sodomy, bestiality, and incest", and so on. --Xyzzyplugh 20:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I've now removed the anti-black prejudice section entirely.  Most of its claims were unsourced, and those that had a source were mostly referring to an unpublished manuscript which was apparently made part of a court case and has now been posted onto a website.  I don't find this to be enough of a credible source to base this section on.  Some parts of this section were also redundant to the beginning of the Other Prejudices section.  The one useful link, to ADL's page on the WBC's quotes on blacks, I moved up a few paragraphs to the beginning of the other prejudices section.  If anyone thinks this article needs more on anti-black prejudice, I suggest writing something yourself from scratch rather than just reverting back to this low quality material.  --Xyzzyplugh 15:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Prejudices 

message: I found this link and I thought maybe wikipedia could use it to demonstrate conclusively but NPOV-ly the kinds of messages that godhatesfags.com tries to convey. http://www.godhatesfags.com/fliers/flierarchive2001.html  The source is godhatesfags.com so it's hard to discount the source as biased agains godhatesfags.com.  MPS 05:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add it to the article's list of links, if you like.  Though there are already a number of links to various godhatesfags webpages.  It's not difficult to determine their views and messages, they display them as prominently as they possibly can.  --Xyzzyplugh 22:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: flyers

message: I noticed that one of the redirections leading to the Westboro Baptist Church page was godhatesfags.com. A redirection which was hastily abolished. Any oppositions? Salluste 22:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Evident vandilism

message: Me and my friend we're joing around, and he said he sometimes wondered what would happen if the Site was called 'Allahhatesfags'.  I thought the idea was funny, and typed it into the address bar to see if someone had already seized on this humourous potential...
Surprise!  It's a redirect to GHF! T ConX 03:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not any more. Daniel (☎) 22:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange... 

message: I added the section about the recent "no-show" in Missouri.  Even though Missouri passed a law prohibiting protesting at funerals (aimed at the group), it apperntly was also decided using their children in protest constitued child endangerment, grounds for arrest and putting their children in foster homes. 68.89.218.230 23:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missouri

message: Critic at Arms: I'd never heard of Rick Ross, but checking his Wikipedia page doesn't show any sign of the one-phrase description of him being an anti-religious bigot.  I mean, lots of people have been accused of that; would you introduce Thomas Jefferson as "Many opposed Alexander Hamilton, including the deist Thomas Jefferson" or "including the Anti-Federalist Thomas Jefferson?"  It's both more accurate, and more relevant to the topic at hand.
::Rick Ross is not as extremist and narrow in his views as Phelps, but he is certainly not in the Christian mainstream.  He is known to be an anti-every-religion-but-his bigot and an opportunist.  Like Phelps, he has his claims of "persecution" when his true history is brought to light (felony conviction as a thief and his involvement with the Waco mess).  Those who are familiar with Ross are either his supporters or they will see him as a suitable yardstick by which to measure Phelps and his followers -- Ross is, say, 6 miles out, while Phelps is 10 miles out, and even Ross sees Phelps as extreme.  -- Critic-at-Arms 19 APR 06  
Juli, as for the news story discussed above on talk in January: Yes, yes, no original research, but this is a little ridiculous.  If WBC blindly asserted that a horde of slavering homosexuals attacked their church and they bravely fought them off, would that be worth of a slot in the Violence against WBC section? I still say it's better to cut this down drastically or delete it, but I tried to make it even more clear in a NPOV way that any reasonably objective standard says that this is fantasy. SnowFire 18:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes... 

message: As I said on the Phelps page (although I did not write much of this article), I am adding "Alleged" to the Hockenbarger's status with Identity until a 100% reliable source can be cited.70.241.29.250 06:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identity 

message: Can the people who added the POV and Contradiction templates explain which parts of the article they consider to exhibit these problems? TSP 16:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV, Contradiction 

message: Above there were questions as to whether Phelps is racist. I think this needs to be revisited as the article now explicitly states that this church is racist. Note that while the church has "racialized" beliefs, I don't know that they are explicitly "racist". It's a touchy subject, obviously, but the only reason I bring it up was because they were added as an example of a racist church on Religious attitudes to racism. I removed them from that article as I don't think that the accusation is technically correct. Phelps seems more interested in gay-bashing anyway. --ScienceApologist 21:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted the text in question (the beginning of the Other Prejudices section) to the text it contained from months ago.  Someone added a few words to a sentence to reverse its meaning, I've put it back.  --Xyzzyplugh 13:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Racist question

message: I'm a bit confused by the article's description of the WBC as a white nationalist group. Although Phelps has used racial slurs, he seems to have used them more in an attempt to offend the individuals he was insulting rather than as an attack on any racial group. For example, if he's insulting some who is fat, he will call him a "fat faggot" but that doesn't make him anti-fat. Phelps insults anyone who is not sufficiently homophobic and if the person he's attacking happens to be black or fat or whatever, Phelps will use that fact as another weapon at his disposal. I suggest that the allegations of the WBC being white nationalists be removed from the article (although the part about him using racial slurs should stay). Edrigu 17:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replaced the phrase "white nationalism" with "racism", as I can find no evidence that anyone has accused the wbc of being white nationalist, nor do they themselves claim to be. I used "racism" instead because the anti-defamation league has indeed accused the wbc of being racist.  --Xyzzyplugh 13:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  White nationalistm? 

message: This article is over twice as large as Wikipedia recommends. It's in need of a serious pruning. CovenantD 18:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree entirely. My suggestions:
#Strip out the unsourced material which appears to be Original Research
#Take out the info about Christian Identity which belongs in that article.
#Delete the quotes which are excessive
#Personal info can be moved to Fred Phelps
#If the article is still too long split into sub articles on, e.g. Acts of Divine vengeance claimed by the Westboro Baptist Church
AndrewRT 20:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article length

message: Regarding my edits:  as discussed at Talk:Fred Phelps Addicted To Hate is a likely copyright violation on the site we linked to.  WP:EL says we should not link to such sites.  We can (obviously) link to copyrighted material, but not if we beleive the site is an unauthorized user of the material.  I left in all the information, and the citations.  Anybody can still find it in Google.  Also, I removed the baseless claim the book is in the public domain because it was submitted to a court.  Enormous amounts of copyrighted material are submitted to courts as evidence, and don't enter the public domain (they maintain their copyright).  We should not give our readers bogus legal advise which encourages them to break the law by violating somebody's copyright.    --Rob 05:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyvio link and bogus legal advise 

message: This is about as likely as Spike Lee bleaching his skin. Either I see a source or it gets deleted and remains so.209.169.114.213 04:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Hockenbargers leaving Westboro 

message: After the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks, Phelps' group went to New York City to protest the rescue efforts going on there, mocking victims as they were taken from the rubble, shouting obscenities at rescue workers and demanding that those still alive be left to die.
What's the source for this? I far as I recall, very few victims were recovered from the WTC site after the first 24 hours or so. Meanwhile, passenger air traffic was shut down for several days. Did they drive from Kansas? That'd take more than 24 hours, I think. Mocking the victims? If this means mocking them face-to-face, it strikes me as unlikely. The WTC site is huge. Each building had a footprint of 1 acre, so the piles of rubble must have extended over many acres. I don't see how protesters could single out individual rescue attempts. For that matter, wasn't much of Lower Manhatten evacuated for the first few days after the attacks? I'm pretty sure the pictures you see of crowds at Ground Zero were taken during the clearing-up of the rubble, which took several months.
I suspect some of most of this section is fantasy or Internet rumour. If proper sourcing isn't forthcoming, I will delete it in 24 hours.--CJGB (Chris) 16:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've trimmed the section back to a few documented or reasonably plausible assertions. It seems to me that a few other section of this article could use a similar purge, but I'm not intending to do it myself.--CJGB (Chris) 16:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  September 11 

message: I went through the external links section and did some cleaning up according to the guidelines at Wikipedia:External links. Most of my changes were similar to those made at a cleanup I just did at Fred Phelps; rather than retype my rationale, you can read my note at Talk:Fred Phelps here.
For the editors who read here before adding new links — and thank you for checking the discussion page first — please make sure that they add something new, unique and significant that is not already covered by the other links. There are a TON of pages critiquing the WBC, a TON of interviews and news articles, and a TON of parody sites. Is the new link going to add something essential to this encyclopedic article that isn't already here? Could you instead add said content and use your link as a reference? Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 22:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links cleanup 

message: I've added a lot of  to this article because its an unholy mess and needs editing by a competent editor. It's difficult to work out where the article on WBC ends and Fred Phelps begins.
You'd think with all of the claims made about WBC that each one would be referenced properly - and you'd be wrong because this is Wikipedia. And no, it isn't my responsibility to find those citations, it's the responsibility of the editors when they insert new allegations about WBC that they cite where those allegations came from. --86.131.86.10 11:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  50% plus citations are missing 

message: Today, as it stands, the first sentence of the intro of this article reads: "Westboro Baptist Church is a religous group based in Topeka, Kansas, headed by Fred Waldron Phelps, Sr."
"Religious group" is regularly edited to "hate-group". "religious cult" or to other definitions. Can we just talk about our reasoning behind these changes here first? I agree that it is a hate group, and that it is a cult. And I agree that these definitions, with supporting references, must come high up in the introduction. But is it truly in the best spirit of Wikipedia, or of human intercourse, to denounce when we're supposed to describe? There are some "facts" about Westboro B Church, and they can be written neutrally this way: 
Westboro Baptist Church is a Christian grouping based in Topeka, Kansas, headed by its minister, Fred Waldron Phelps, Sr. The church, whose membership does not exceed 100, is known for running the website, www.godhatesfags.com and other websites expressing condemnation of homosexuals, Catholics, and various other groups. The church is monitored as a hate group by the Anti-Defamation League and by the Southern Poverty Law Center.[1]
This is my understanding of the situation (and I am not American). The WBC bases its hatred on its Christian principles, therefore its being a Christian group should come foremost. Phelps is not just some self-called leader, he is an ordained Baptist minister: therefore this should be cited clearly. The rest follows.
I will change nothing on the page at this point, but I would argue that when changes are made, they should be explained on this discussion page. If you change something, you must want that change to stick. Unless you argue for that change here, it will not remain, because no consensus will have been gained. If you believe truly in your point of view, you must believe that others can be persuaded to it. Otherwise it is a mere solipsism. MacMurrough 01:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First Sentence 

message: That listed everyone who were known members of Westboro? It was really useful, did it get AFD'd?Dev920 23:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where'd that article go... 

message: These people travel all over the US, constantly, they run a billion websites, must have more technology than Bill Gates in terms of video cameras, cameras, software, etc, and run a massive church which is lit up 24/7. How can these people afford it? How can any of them, given what they do in their spare time, hold down a job? 5 are members of Phelps-chartered, yes, but 1)Who employs them and 2) How can 5 people support a hundred? This is what I just don't understand about WBC... Dev920 00:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Running costs.