Talk:Westboro Baptist Church/Archive 3

message: As per the Phelps article (edited this same session by me) I've highlighted that WBC is a christian denomination/church. Also, as it seems from Phelps' biography, that he is an ordained minister, I've put a Rev. before his name. I've removed the mention, in the second para of intro, to WBC being considered hyper-calvinist. This charge, if you follow the link, is to a debate, when in the heat of the argument, Phelps' adversary charges him with hyper-calvinism. Phelps may very well be hyper-anything-you-like, but for an encyclopaedia a more solid foundation of citation is required. I've changed "even those" in the third para to "including those" (as per recommendation above). But I've put the word "sin" into scare-quotes. I'm not sure in the context if sin is stated as fact or opinion. If as opinion then scare-quotes should go. (Would welcome input.) Also in third para, I'm not sure that it's true that WBC is Anti-American (at least not in the sense that that term is usually understood). Surely their behaviour, to their own thinking, is pro-American -- in that they wish to save America from some presumed possible catastrophe? MacMurrough 00:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not the place for speculation that WBC is "really" pro-American. They say God hates America, and that they stand with God. We should say what they say, not second-guess it. - Outerlimits 01:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is of course true. But the nature of their anti-Americanism is not simple. It is contingent on America's perceived support for homosexuals. This reason is not within the usual gamut of anti-Americanism. (After all, many people can be anti-homosexual and still pro-American. There seems something odd about the WBC that they can't balance that -- and this is what I think should be addressed.) They are not simply anti-American, so that a link to Anti-American would suffice. It's extraordinary, way out of the ordinary, for any supposedly religious group to make protestations at the funerals of returned US war-dead. The notation requires, in my view, some elaboration: eg, they're only anti-American in so far as America supports ... or in that America denies ... whatever (something inevitably to do with homosexuality). You know, I believe these people are wrong. But because I believe they are wrong, I also believe that the more truthful, more accurate, and the more unbiased this article can be, the more any reader will come to that same conclusion. So npov Wiki + me are together. MacMurrough 01:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be sure to say that they consider themselves anti-american, and not say that they are. And say why they consider themselves anti-american. A quote from Phelps or the church would be nice. And if we don't use a direct quote, then be sure to say something along the lines of "what they perceive as America's pro-gay bias" or something. Tell a queer that America is supportive of alternative sexualities and see if you don't get laughed at. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 01:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

text:  I'm not sure I get all this. I'd do it myself but my broadband is off (and wbc has gone all video lately), but it used to be the case you could hit their site and find out immediately why they're anti-America. The quotes would all be there, the citation would be in your browser. Nobody's asking for an inference to be made. Only for them to damn themselves in their own words. They used to have pages and pages on why America was damned. Couldn't one of yez just go there and get the damned quote, plus citation (which would be the web address) and we'd all be happy. It would then be their words that they're anti-American, not ours, and we wouldn't have to discuss it at all. MacMurrough 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean about WBC having gone all video lately, as I haven't checked their website in a while.  However, if you want to find old versions of it, the internet archive will have plenty of old versions of their site.  http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.godhatesfags.com  --Xyzzyplugh 13:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to intro 

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

message: A user continuously adds a promotional link to a nn show link under Wikipedia:Notability that is considered spam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cuberds (talk • contribs) .
:It appears that Cuberds was told that a link added to Chris DiBona was unwelcome, and is now attempting to make a point by deleting existing links from other articles.  Refer to the user's contribs and talk page. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 00:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam 

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

message: I added  needed to this section because many of the words in this section they simply did not say. It is odd considering it is easily verifiable. In particular:
The grand daughters said nothing like "they hoped no one else was one of the elect",
They didn't say they wanted everyone else in the world to die horribly and burn in hell.  (What they said was that it would be fine with them if the whole world went to hell, but it was whatever God wanted),
They said nothing even remotely like "even if they didn't believe their actions were dictated by God, they would still do and enjoy them anyway".
This whole article is sloppy sloppy sloppy, full of made up quotes and misrepresentations. Why do you need to make up quotes for a group that says outrageous enough things in real life? GuyInCT
:I spent a lot of time looking for the source of these quotes (assuming that there was more to the interview than the few bits in the Sky article), but couldn't find anything.  — Laura Scudder ☎ 06:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sky Television report 

message: Can someone who knows what they are doing fix up the Reference and/or Purpose section. Looks like someone who doesn't know what they are doing messed them up. (not me!)
:Agree! Java programming mistake? 惑乱 分からん 12:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference and/or Purpose section all screwed up 

message: Just delete this page and actually put up a page based on fact, not hate and "half-truths." This article is garbage and should be deleted —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.2.198.241 (talk • contribs).
:What facts would you like to see here, and what parts of the page are "half-truths"? -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 05:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete this 

message: I discovered VANDALISM on this page. I cannot find the edit button as described in the how-to, else I would revert it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.131.10.163 (talk • contribs).
:What vandalism do you see? -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 05:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  VANDALISM ALERT!