Talk:Fred Phelps/Archive 2

message: People who are smart enough to sneak into a block-size compound with ten-feet-tall walls are also smart enough to realize that it would be detrimental to an anti-Phelps cause to make him a martyr.
Also, I'm going to guess that the family will hold his funeral inside their compound, probably burying him there, too. This way, anyone who tries to protest it in a manner that would emotionally affect the attendees of the funeral can be sued and/or arrested for trespassing. The Topeka Police will be on high alert on that day on account of the bomb threats to the compound to allow access to the inside.
I'm really hoping that we can protest it directly, as he did to Matthew Shepard. If the adherents to the Phelps Theology are consistent, this would be fair and correspond to the Ten Commandments.
Oh wait, the Jews received the Commandments so they probably don't care about murder or adultery or the "Golden Rule"...
Forgot about that. --68.110.21.142 11:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why He Hasn't Been Murdered, and his Funeral...

message: Is there any evidence that proves that Phelps is "A former candidate for the Democratic nomination for governor of Kansas"?  I note that it hasn't been cited. and I've been unable to find evidence of his candidacy online. As such I feel it should be deleted.
Well, you must not have search very hard.  Here's a link: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21229
As a Kansan, I specifically remember his 1998 bid for Governor, and all the controversy that surrounded it.
User:Burroughsks88 16:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After accidentally rolling back the addition of this information, I moved it down to the Personal Beliefs section and expanded it a bit. The original wording gave the impression that Phelps played a significant role in his campaign (and was actually supported by the Democratic Party). Also added the reference. Interesting — and surprising — find. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 23:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, if you'll reread it, it never says that Phelps was not accepted as a member of the DP. It reads: "However, despite his claimed affiliation, Phelps' ideology lies far from the goals and ideals typically embraced by Democrats." In any case Phelps' notoriety comes from his radical religious ideology; his attention-grabbing bid for office is collorary to that. He is far more recognized for his picketing and "preaching". I disagree that it should be added to the introduction, and based on the reversions of other editors, it would be wise to discuss things further than than trying to force it in. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 20:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Democratic Candidate?

message: 202.82.33.202 07:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Anti-Protest law in Illinois

message: This is a good article and is generally well referenced, but there are several critical statements that lack sourcing. There is, for example, a whole paragraph on him shotgunning a dog to death, while drunk and stoned, because it deficated on his lawn. What would be the best course of action? I am considering Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates. --Oldak Quill 20:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the above text was censored per WP:LIVING (the exact fact isn't as important, as the fact we've done a lousy job at sourcing this article). --Rob 01:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs more references 

message: Addicted To Hate:
The Full Story of the False Prophet Fred Phelps
---
Fred Phelps Expose'
IMPORTANT NOTES FROM THE ANTI-PHELPS UNDERGROUND
PLEASE MAKE 10 COPIES OF THIS THIS FILE AND GIVE THEM TO THOSE WHO FIND THE ACTIVITIES OF FRED PHELPS UNCONSCIONABLE. 
<snip>
Mark believes that Fred Phelps, no longer able to hate and abuse his adult children if he hopes to keep them near, by necessity now must turn all his protean anger outward against his community. Mark has decided to tell the truth about his father so that others will be warned. He and his brother have now come forward with specific and detailed stories, alarming tales, ones that could be checked and have been verified. Mark's testimony supports Nate's previously, and both men's statements have been confirmed by a third Phelps' child. In addition, the Capital- Journal has uncovered documents which substantiate this testimony, and interviewed dozens of relevant witnesses who have confirmed much of this information. "One of my earliest memories...," the voice in the phone pauses, painful to remember: "was the big ol' German shepherd that belonged to our neighbors. One day it was in our yard and my father went out and blew it apart with his shotgun."
http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/atohate.htm
Addicted to Hate: The Fred Phelps Story
Chapter Four: Dog Days for the Pastor 
<snip>
In later years, Phelps was convinced he was alone in his church with only his children to listen because those who'd opened Westboro were too weak for the harsh truth of God: that He hated sinners as well as the sin; and therefore His elect must also hate the sinners-even those who might be assembled with them. If the local Baptist churches were still unsure about the new fire and brimstone brother from Arizona, shooting his neighbor's dog didn't help. Aside from etching one of his children's earliest memories, shotgun-blasting the large German shepherd that had wandered into his unfenced yard quickly got the novice pastor notice in his community. The incident was discussed in the papers, and the dog's owner sued the arrogant minister. Fred defended himself and won, an action his son Mark believes may have encouraged his father's turn to the law.
But the irrationality and violence of the act sent the last of his congregation scurrying back to Eastside. For weeks after the shooting, one church member recalls, someone placed signs on the lawn in front of Westboro at night that declared prophetically: "Anyone who'd stoop to killing a dog someday will mistake a child for a dog." Soon it was clear no one wanted any part of Fred's god not if he hated like Fred. And that posed a problem for the Pastor Phelps: he still owed 32 dollars a week on the bonds for the church, and no one was paying for his hate show on Sundays. 
http://www.rslevinson.com/gaylesissues/features/collect/phelps/bl_phelpschapter04.htm
NiftyDude 23:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fred Phelps: Dog and the shotgun references 

message: http://cjonline.com/indepth/phelps/archive.shtml
NiftyDude 23:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: In-Depth Fred Phelps Archive

message: Please let us know the moment this pig dies so we can demonstrate at his funeral.
:There was a flower on the monument of Debbie L. Valgos on findagrave.com that said, She's waiting for you, Fred.  Yes, not only is she waiting, but so are Matthew Sheppard, Pope John Paul II, Fred Rogers, the soliders of the funerals Phelps' group desecrated, and everyone else Phelps has attacked over the years.
:JesseG 21:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep us up to date! 

message: How is a picture of what the guy actually currently looks like POV?
:I think what Jibbajabba meant is that it's not a "neutral" picture, in the sense that you wouldn't consider one of the pictures of Dubya as a monkey an appropriate picture for his article, particularly as a header picture. Regardless of how we feel about Phelps, neutrality needs to be the standard for pictures as well, as difficult as it can potentially be to define. Deadsalmon 04:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's exactly w hat I was saying. For example, you wouldn't allow Adolf Hitler's top picture to be of him  during one of those infamous speeches with his hands to his face. And for the record, please don't accuse me of being a Phelps supporter - I just think it's unfair to make sure Hitler, Bush, etc have NPOV pages while this guy had a picture that even comments on its talk page said makes him look like a demon. Jibbajabba 20:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Total Wikipedia mindset, which is great (and hard) to maintain in these articles.  Phelps's picture can be nice as can be.. his words expose the truth of his idiocy.
Kether83 11:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: This article cites "Addicted to Hate" quite a few times, yet the text is located on a website that provides no information about who they are or why we should trust what is on their website. I must question the motives of the website when it has no main homepage and admits posting the content it has may be illegal(?), urging people to make their own backup copiese, so I have added the  template. Jibbajabba 20:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: I noticed that the article has been tagged with a "hoax" note at the top. Could anyone please tell me the reason behind this?--SigmaX54 21:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoax? 

message: The article itself is excellent, but do you think we are at the point yet, where we could split the page somehow? It's becoming a bit of a difficult read as it is; failing the above suggestion, some formatting changes might be in order. -Tim Rhymeless  (Er...let's shimmy) 06:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a thought... 

message: 1) It is quite rude to delete a photo and not address it aside from a hidden comment essentially ordering others to follow one's wishes without discussion. You claim the photo is NPOV. I ask, how can a photo be NPOV? This is how Phelps looks. It is unedited. Because he is smiling in the pulpit photo? Does this mean we must have happy looking pictures of everyone? The fact of the matter is that Phelps is not a man to smile often. The pulpit photo is essentially false representation. Not only that, but it is old, and by comparing the two photos, outdated in terms of accurately representing Phelps. The only other recent photos of Phelps I could find are terribly blurry. 
2) The information on Bart McQueary is not inaccurate. He did deal porn, and until he realized that his webpage was still accessible and blocked it using robots.txt, his old business pages were visible online. McQueary claims that he is no longer a porn salesman. I also included a tidbit about his children's charity operations and health scare. 
:Removed the link to his website, which now only redirects to his personal Myspace page, and contains no zealotry described in the paragraph.--Burri 22:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, your question about the photo was discussed; you can find it just above this thread. I'd disagree with your assertation that the photo is too "old" for use on Wikipedia, as Phelps does not look significantly different since that photo was taken in 2001. Calling it "false representation" is a stretch too; the photo was taken from Phelps' own website. Additionally, you still have not provided documentation for support for Phelps from any of the three groups you have named; that's a potentially libelous charge and it needs to be cited to a reputable source (see WP:V). Same goes for the Bart McQueary content. Keep in mind that this isn't a condemnation of the material you've added, but rather of its lack of documentation. If you can follow up with sources — and we're glad to help, if you'd like — we're happy to leave it in. In the meantime, it needs to be removed. Deadsalmon 06:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent deletions 

message: If we could get permission to use one of these?
http://www.pensitoreview.com/images/photo-phelps-he's-gay.jpg
http://www.rickross.com/images/phelps2.jpg
http://www.wearemichigan.com/concerns/phelps/images/ph1.jpg
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by NiftyDude (talk • contribs) 12:26, 18 January 2006.
:Where did you have in mind using them? It depends where you plan on using them in the article; if you're suggesting replacements for the lead-in picture at the top, the second would probably be best candidate — the other two aren't bad, but the first is not of Phelps alone, and the third is a somewhat atypical picture, only in the sense that he's wearing cold weather clothes. I do think the picture is fine how it stands, though. On a related note, it seems odd to me that the article has no pictures of Phelps picketing. With the great number available, it shouldn't be hard to find one. Has anyone tried contacting Westboro's web site to see if they would release one for use on Wikipedia? Deadsalmon 19:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it sounds like the most appropriate picture. I'd support a change. Deadsalmon 04:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate Fred Phelps Pictures 

message: I've reverted this back to Niftydudes last version. TimmyBIsCool removed large sections to new pages, but failed to leave summary paragraphs and links to the new pages in the article. Without these, the information in the removed sections cannot be found from the article. 84.68.221.100 17:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert 

message: I know that WBC has denounced West Virginia and the coal miners, but the recently added paragraph in the beginning of the page looks questionable due to grammar and I can't find anything on a "God Hates West Virginia" campaign. -- Medico Dinamico
:I don't know if he's used a phrase like "God Hates West Virginia", though he's done it with homosexuals, America, Sweden, and Canada... and I'd think it's implied in "God Hates America". He has gone to West Virginia to picket the miners' funerals, and if this and this are any indication, I'd say he hates W.V. Jibbajabba 23:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is he saying God hates West Virginia for suffering Catholics to live?  Ruby 00:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  West Virginia 

message: I know this has nothing to do with the actual article, but I can't fathom how a man can be so consumed by hatred that he dedicates his life to picketing the funerals of gays, American troops killed in Iraq and... I can't even believe this... Mr Rogers. I wish this scum and his entire bigoted church would be wiped from the face of the Earth. Sorry, I had to get that off my chest. Resume your POV/NPOV debating now. --BlueTruth 02:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disgusting human-being 

message: Perhaps his article should be referenced in external links?  Or is it too unencyclopediac?--Vercalos 22:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leonard Pitts 

message: I'm quite sure someone vandalized this page by altering the phraseology of several lines.
For example:
His father, Fred Wade Phelps, was a detective employed by the local railroad (a.k.a. a railroad bull), whose job it was to keep people from illegally riding the rails. Fred recalls his gay father often came home from work "with blood up to his shoulders".
 
The family were devout members of the Gay Methodist Episcopal Church, South.
 
Shortly after his mother's death, his maternal great-aunt, Irene Jordan, moved in with the family and became a surrogate motherand lover;
 
In the interim, Phelps waited around Meridian for the time to come to ship out. He became close friends and lovers with another boy, John Capron, with whom he spent most of his time. Fred introduced John to his sister Martha-Jean, and the three began dating; they would eventually marry.
I'm sure there are more along with others that I think could possibly be but it isn't clear.  Regardless, I think this is a good candidate for a page reversion.
''
: I've moved it back to the March 1st entry by Blue Platypus which was the last safe one as far as I can tell. Someone may want to go through and check that. This page should probably also be protected or at least semi-protected. JoshuaZ 04:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalized Page 

message: Shouldn't there be a mention of those guys on here, or at least a link to their entry?
:I think that it would be good to. Where, though? Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 23:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  that would be good, perhaps a simple mention of recent organized opposition to phelps' protests by the PGR?ThuranX 04:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patriot Guard Riders 

message: Just to insert a rare POV comment on my own behalf...
The average life expectancy in the United States is 77. Phelps will be 77 this year. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs  09:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A cause for hope 

message: For example, Rev. Jerry Falwell, who is not known his for pro-homosexual views, has been reported as having described Rev. Phelps as a "first-class nut" .
:The source link doesn't work. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs  08:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  where to put this? 

message: I received a foward about Phelps...
---------------------------------------------------------
Fred Phelps does not believe what he is doing.
This is a scam.
It's a business. They travel the country, set up websites telling you exactly when they'll be there, and using the most inflammatory statements all over the place, just to get someone to violate their rights for profit. Then they sue the military, the police force that was to protect them, and everyone that is around them for money. This is a sham, and it is a trap to get people sued. Every member of his family is an attorney. Phelps does not break the law. What he does is try to make you break the law by trying to punch your sensibilities about everything you hold dear, and then sue you and everyone municipality around him to the max.
This is a scam.
Whether he believes his posters or not is irrelevent. He's using this as a moneymaking scheme. Lay one finger on him, do one thing that violates him, and he will sue you, and more importantly, the city, the police department, the US Military, and any private property owner he happens to be standing on to make money off of it.
Let's look at the ways he's trying to get you up in a tizzy to violate his civil rights for profit:
* He says G-d Hates Fags, G-d hates the US Govt, that G-d hates the US Military, G-d Hates you, and G-d justifies the killing of others.
Phelps knows that saying 'G-d' and 'Hate' in the same sentence gets people worked up. He knows that. He knows that people have a knee jerk reaction to that.
* He says that the US Govt and the United States are evil. This is another hot button with people who love their country. It is intentional. It is designed to make you take a swing at him. He wants 50k USD from you. He wants a powerball winner to swing at him so he gets 100 million dollars. It's that simple.
* He goes after homosexuals, he goes after people who are making sacrifices. Phelps intentionally targets people that are being victimized, or good people doing their jobs to create more outrage. He kicks people when they're down. He does that so someone will come up and defend them. Then he will sue you.
* His boards are laminated on hardwood, because he pulls them out of trucks at least five times a week. He also puts them in bright colors for attention, and makes absolutely sure that you can read them at all time. He's phishing you. Everyone must know that.
The most telling tale about all of Phelp's behavior is the schedule he keeps, and the company he keeps as well. The parties sometimes split up and go to two seperate state funerals to maximize the profitability of them. There are, at maximum, twelve members to the party. They never stay more than thirty minutes (I assume they realize that someone will do something to them the MOMENT they come out of the vans, and really, after that, they get their camera shots to cause the outrage for the next stop, and then they move on) to maximize their profits, because time is money, and really, they're not interested in the message, because they're just interested in the lawsuit.
See? They don't believe this stuff. If they did, they wouldn't have come to Coretta Scott King's funeral. Because in their doctrine, they don't believe that G-d hates black people who tried to promote Christianity. So why were they there? They were there to make a buck when someone slipped up. They were there to petition the police department for a right to protest, and if they didn't get it, take them to court over it.
Basically, Phelps is playing the Ken Lay, Karl Rove, "Smartest Man in the Room" game where he is willing to do anything (if it be lying or stealing, or telling you God hates you) to make himself rich and powerful. This is his scheme, and admittedly, it's clever, but just downright evil to promote so much hatred in the world.
Tell all your friends about this. This man is a con artist, and he's not a man of religion whatsoever.
After all, he makes everyone around him a lawyer. That should tell you right now he is not anything.
----------------------------------
Should these ideas be incorporated into the article? --Darkdan 20:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  just doing this for profit? 

message: I've created a separate section about the Patriot Guard Riders (in part because I wanted something not deeply depressing to appear in the article's table of contents!).
Unfortunately, neither Google nor cnn.com's search function could find a citation for this paragraph:
:When mourners at the targeted funerals were asked if they minded the roaring of the motorcylces, they responded no, as they, "preferred the loud roar of the patriotic machine than the bigoted cries of idiots." As stated in an interview with CNN.
I've therefore removed it. If anyone can find a citation, please edit the article accordingly — it's a great line.
I've also moved the Table of Contents of this page, and made the headers number properly.
(Later) Thanks to User:BabuBhatt for improving my edit. And this time, I'll sign my comment: Chris Chittleborough 08:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes made 28-Mar-2006 

message: I wish to challenge this article based on bias. You are way to nice to this asshole! Expose his idiocy!
:Please sign your contributions to talk pages by adding -~~~~ at the end.
:Fortunately and unfortunately, the style we've all agreed to adopt here prevents us from being, well, mean to Phelps.  -Seth Mahoney 04:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: pretty sad that this american's article is "one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community" and this one isn't Bigkev 06:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, though nothing brings in the editors in droves quite like a controversial topic or person.DavidGC 03:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: George Washington isn't curently doing stunts seeking the lime light.  More people are finding the Fred Phelps article to be incomplete then the George Washington article.  If you personally are more interested in George Washington then we all know what to do :)  I'm more interested in readin about Fred Phelps, I've read plenty about George.  Mathiastck 19:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sad 

message: Although I am the person who wrote the majority of this article, and I originally claimed that Charles Hockenbarger, et. al., were actual members of Identity, the source from which I culled this has come into question in regards to its credibility. Therefore, I am adding the qualifier "allegedly" until this can be cleared up.70.241.29.250 06:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identity 

message: The link to the full text of the book Addicted to Hate is against the policy of Wikipedia.  According to the policy of Wikipedia regarding copyrights we are not to include links to material that violate the owners copyright. (Under "Linking to copyrighted works it says, "Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. ") Just because a book (or movie, or audio recording, or anything other work) is entered into evidence in a trial, does not mean that the work can be freely stolen and distributed at whim.  Copyrighted works do not go into the public domain when they are entered as evidence in court trials.  I am removing Addicted to Hate as an external link for this reason.  Vivaldi (talk) 04:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Addicted to Hate'' link is copyvio 

message: Addicted to Hate is a self-published book that was written by Jon Bell.  The work is owned by the Topeka Capital-Journal, but it was never published by anyone other than Jon Bell and some personal website that has inappropriately and probably illegally stolen the text and reprinted it in full.  Jon Bell was an employee of TCJ when he was investigating Phelps, and therefore TCJ is the rightful owner of the work that was a derivative of the research that he was being paid to do when he was an employee of TCJ.  TCJ sued Bell and won their case preventing Bell from ever publishing his book.  (It is not clear that his book would have ever been published by anyone other than Jon Bell or some vanity publisher in any case.) Vivaldi (talk) 04:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one owns the copyright because it was cleverly attached to a court document, making it public domain. That was, of course, the intent in attaching it to that court file: To ensure that it became public domain.Mistergrind 05:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You do not understand the meaning of copyright or what constitues making something "in the public domain".  Just because an item (book, movie, or whatever else) is submitted to a court does not mean that it becomes "in the public domain".  Also, there is no way to verify that this document was even the same document that was submitted to the court.  Vivaldi (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Your confusing different levels of government, and the issue of who does the work.  Works of the U.S. federal government are PD.  Works of the state and local governments, usually are not.  Even if the court (a county court in this case) made this document, it wouldn't be PD.  Even the text of judicial decisions is not necessary in the public domain, even when made public.  Of course in this case, the court didn't make it, meaning that its almost certainly not PD.  You also confuse making something available to the public (e.g. "public record") with "public domain".  Many things are made public, without being in the public domain (for example, most of the billions of web pages in the world).  A copyright holder can only loose their copyright if they explicitly release it.  IANAL, but one handy rule-of-thumb I use, is if a web site warns you the legal status is "murky" and suggests you consider an "offshore" host to store the file, be cautious.  Now you *might* have a case for using this link, if and only if, you argue Jon Michael Bell is the lawful copyright holder, who therefore has the right to release the material (in such a case, it still wouldn't be PD, but it would be legal usage, and therefore, ok to link to).  But so far, I haven't heard you say that.  Also, the current wording "the text entered into public domain" is a literal falsehood, which aught to be removed regardless of whether the link is preserved.  --Rob 22:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I de-linked it.  However, I left the reference in place, as there's no legal problem with an unlinked-reference.  Also, its easy enough to find, even without a direct link, and is as useful as countless references that don't have links (e.g. paper sources).  I won't delve into the issue of reliability of sources.  Also I removed the absurd falsehood, which suggested the material was legally released into the public domain.  That exposes its readers (if they beleive it) to legal problems, and is highly irresponsible.  By that absurd logic, anybody filing a lawsuit over coyright infringement, who submits their work into the court record (which occurs in *all* such suits) would be releasing the material to the public domain.  Please, lets not advise people on how to break the law.    --Rob 14:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for removing the absurd falsehood from the article asserting that documents submitted in court trials become public domain.  I couldn't believe that assertion was allowed to remain in the article for more than one minute.  Vivaldi (talk) 01:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any document entered into evidence in a trial becomes part of the public record, and is accessible through court records to anyone as such. It is part of the public record it can be cited, just not published. Needless to say, citing a document here is not the same as publishing. FeloniousMonk 02:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vivaldi, was talking about the specific issue of the false legal advise I removed (which you added) claiming the material is public domain.  I also had to remove the multiple mentions of "public domain" in individual cites.  What you're now talking about, "public record", is distinct from "public domain".  On that issue, note, that the site hosting ATH actually states "the trial records were sealed by the Clerk of the Court.".  The site also suggests anyone hosting the info consider going "offshore" (things legally accessible to the public, don't need to go offshore).  Many court submissions are not accessible to the public.  But, you are quite right, that we're free to cite the document (not link, but cite).  Anyhow, I suggest, leaving the issue of what sources to keep, and instead focus on fixing the article, so that all the footnotes actually match the text they accompany.  Currently, they are out of sync, and there could still be more libel that needs removing.  --Rob 17:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Addicted to Hate'' is a self-published book 

message: I don't think it's very helpful to have a "see also" section consisting solely of links to psychiatric disorders. These should probably be placed in a context relevant to Mr. Phelps. --20:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "See also" 

message: I added a "citation needed" mark to the quote about Mr. Peanut.  While hilarious, it would benefit the article to have a source for that quote. Chris Berry 21:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health section 

message: This section has been blanked per WP:LIVING.  To see the original version, click here.  --Rob 01:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criminal History 

message: After removing the bogus item in the "Criminal record" section, I note the remaining ones are poorly sourced.  We have nndb, which is a) not adequate for very serious matters and b) says that charges may be listed, even if no conviction exists.  The SPLC is a good organization, but probably isn't neutral.  Finally, we have a paper source, which somebody will a) need to vouch for here, b) provide page numbers.  My suspiscion is that the remining criminal items, all have some basis in truth, but we may not be making a clear distinction of criminal vs. non-criminal, and charged vs. convicted in some of the items.  I have trouble understanding how such an awfully sourced article became featured.  Given this articles record of including blatent libel for several weeks, without notice, I'm hoping we can start doing a better job now.    --Rob 16:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article became featured because all-in-all it appears to be a long, well-written (prose-wise), and thorough examination of Fred Phelps.  And I can imagine the most of the stuff written in the article about Phelps is in fact true.  I've seen the disgusting actions of his followers in action in person on the streets of Topeka, Kansas City, and elsewhere on numerous occasions.  However, we must remember that this is biography of a living person and we must as editors of an encyclopeia make sure we are following the guidelines set out there and especially we should make sure that we are following the policy of verifiability, which means that we need reliable and reputable sources of information that have been PUBLISHED (and not just self-published on web pages).  Vivaldi (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  remaining criminal record needs better sourcing 

message: My edit summary got cut off because i hit return instead of shift, but what I was saying about removal of the Euro conversion was that we don't include translations into different currencies unless it's relevant to the article or a case of a significant difference - or, in many cases, they include USD conversions because it's an international measure. That's what I meant about the pounds sterling not being included. Jibbajabba 06:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: - 		 
- 	I beleive this article should be changed, and shrunk substantially. Addicted To Hate (ATH) is clearly noteworthy, and valid to mention, but it's relied on way to much. Just look at the References section. To many things rest solely on such claims. Reliance on ATH risks a situation of defamation (in case claims are untrue). If most of the ATH content was removed the article wouldn't be "pro Phelps", since virtually all reliable sources are (properly) very negative towards the man (who actually seeks bad press). There are countless indisputeable negative notable things about Phelps (mainly in his later life), it's therefore wrong that this article focuses on less verifiable non-notable things (mainly in his early personal life). Also, I feel a shorter article, will be more easily maintainable, which can avoid repition of past known libel that sat in this article for a signficant period of time. If people wish to keep the article at this long length, then I'll respect that *if* you're prepared to carefully review the accuracy of the article, ensuring all facts are actually supported by the cites. Currently, its fairly obvious, that not only are many cites unreliable, but they're out-of-sync with the text. Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting the article be "nicer" to Phelps, but we just stick to the easily verifiable facts. --Rob 03:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  signficant changes are needed, and reducation warranted 

message: The footnote, Fred Phelps#_ref-addict3_7, points to the article http://cjonline.com/indepth/phelps/stories/080394_phelps01.shtml , however this article doesn't talk at all about the sentence for which the footnote applies, "When one of the missionaries choked during a question and answer session, Phelps responded by attacking the questioner, sparking a near riot." I looked back in the history and this sentence should be associated with this source http://blank.org/addict/chapter3.html instead. I'm hoping that I'm misunderstanding but I don't really have a way to search through the revisions to see when this footnote changed and why. Can someone confirm this and fix it. Are other footnotes that point to http://cjonline.com/indepth/phelps/stories/080394_phelps01.shtml bogus as well?
--User:Gene Wood 21:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right.  I made a fix for this, as "addict3" obviously referred to Chapter 3 of Addicted To Hate.  Looking in history, it seems one url was mysteriously copied over another.  The problem was not visible for a long time, because incorrect note numbering allowed a visual association between the note and the chapter, that didn't match the actual association.  The error became visible after the conversion to the "<references><ref>" system. When the old system of footnote numbering was used, it was much harder to keep things in "sync", and I suspect other errors probably slipped in.  --Rob 13:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate Footnoting 

message: Apparently this article was moved recently from Fred Phelps to Senior Fred Waldron Phelps. The current title makes no sense since the article states that the subject's full name is Fred Waldron Phelps, Sr. Designations like "Sr.", "Jr." or "III" do not precede a person's name in any American usage I have ever heard. We have a guideline about this, and the subject is commonly known as Fred Phelps in any event. --Metropolitan90 14:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: I have already moved it back to Fred Phelps in case anyone was wondering.  --Metropolitan90 15:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was this article moved? 

message: The category of former drug users was added several days ago, and today it was removed.  I was wondering why this took place.  The article clearly states Phelps is a former drug user, so unless the article is incorrect, I see no reason why this category should be removed.  It seems to me that if you are going to remove the category, you need to remove the references to former drug use.  I'm not going to revert it (yet), because the editor deserves a chance to explain, and perhaps this was already discussed and I missed the dialogue.  As I know that tone is lost on the printed word, let me state I'm not complaining, accusing, or being confrontational (I have to add the disclaimer with this page, since it is so very controversial), but honestly would like to know what rationale was involved.  Perhaps the suggestion is he may still be a drug user and that information is unknown?  Let me know!  :) Cheers!  --Chuchunezumi 03:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Former drug use