Talk:Fred Phelps/Archive 1

message: Added the information on Phelps' untimely demise. According to CNN, he killed himself. Wow.
::uh, let's see,  as of 2:30 cdt Topeka time, October 10, 2005, there is nothing in the Topeka paper on this, nothing on CNN, nothing on the westboro baptist church site, and there _is_ an mp3 of his sunday sermon from Oct 9 on there.  I call BS.  Rick Boatright 19:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: False report of Phelps' death

message: godhatesfags.com and godhatesamerica.com really should be their own articles. If I had more time today, I'd jump right on it. Please take the initiative :) Kingturtle 21:02, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  separate articles for his websites 

message: "Phelps's group also planned a protest at the funeral of David Charlebois..."  This is a teaser.  Did they protest? If so why mention the planning.  If not what stopped them? Rich Farmbrough 12:18, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion requested... 

message: Is it worth noting that Phelps's site claims "Gospel truth", but cites only OT books and epistles (i.e., no gospels at all) condemning homosexuality?  There are citations to gospel verses, but none AFAICT refer to homosexuality at all. It seems to me worth noting that, despite his claims, Phelps cannot give any evidence that Christ (as opposed to Paul or the OT writers who also condemned eating pork) had anything at all to say about homosexuality.
--Tkinias 10:57, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gospel 

message: Fred Phelps does not use the title "reverend". He uses the title "pastor".
The reason for this is that the only Biblical use of reverend is used to refer to God and no human.
This swine should not be accorded any religious titles. For those of you who wants to add Rev., or Pastor to his name, three words for you: Check Your Sanity.
:It would be interesting to know in which Bible translation Phelps finds the word "reverend" at all, let alone being used to refer to God.... Well, actually, no, I guess it wouldn't be that interesting.... - Nunh-huh 03:18, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was right, it wasn't that interesting. In the RSV, that's "He sent redemption to his people; he has commanded his covenant for ever. Holy and terrible is his name!".  - Nunh-huh 07:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of REV 

message: I seem to remember that Phelps was opposed to Tarja Halonen being elected as president of Finland, because of her former job as editor of a sexual equality magazine. Can anyone confirm this?  — JIP | Talk 10:37, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phelps and Halonen 

message: Whether or not it is a cult, there is only 1 person making that decision. Until then, he is designated a leader, be it a cult or a club.  Who 07:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: This picture is so bad, it's biased. He looks evil, and though I think he is idiot, this photo should be changed.
:I swapped the images around, so a better-looking one is at the top. Andjam 09:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm embarassed to say that the particular photo (fred2004) scared me when I first saw it... --SigmaX54 06:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fred2004.JPG 

message: Although not as pronounced as their views on homosexuality, the Westboro Baptist Church appears to espouse a form of racism. However, their racist rhetoric is often a reaction to an opposition to their anti-homosexual speech by a racially-oriented organization. 
This text was deleted earlier by BlueGlowGuardian, reasons unstated, assuming because of POV.
This could use some cites.
--Tznkai 04:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racism 

message: There are some internal discrepancies, e.g., he owed the candy company $20,000 in 1995, or in excess of $125,000.
User:70.243.35.89 has been improving on the article. From what I can tell, it seemed NPOV and mostly layout and information related. However, blanking out entire sections and not discussing or citing references may become an issue. The sections (September 11 and the Shuttle Columbia) and (Theology) were completely removed. Some of the previous edits went to Westboro Baptist Church (Topeka), but these gave no explanation.
*Please reference your edits, or give a reason for their removal.  Thanks.  
<>Who?¿? 20:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, for your understanding, and for the previous work done so far.  Note: if you wish to sign your discussion edits, you can do so by using ~~~~, four tildas, as they will translate into your username and datestamp.  Which you may want to register a username in the future.  <>Who?¿? 20:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Current edits

message: I get the feeling that the writer of htis article is somewhat less than fond of Freddie. Manticore 02:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oooookkkkkaaaaayyyyyy 

message: This article looks pretty good, and seems very comprehensive. Do you think it might be a featured article candidate? Djbrianuk 23:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured? 

message: I've heard anywhere from 75-200.
* Roughly 100. There are 75 listed members in the "Members of Westboro Baptist Church" entry, but several new grandchildren and great grandchildren have been born since the resources used for that article were last updated. Note that the group considers these children to be members, until they show some sign of being "un-elect," so from the moment one of the women gives birth, that infant is considered to be a part of the church. Just last week "Malachi Phelps" was born (it's interesting that either 1) They ran out of "standard" Bible names to give to their kids, lest they start to overlap, or 2) They've all gone freakier and begun to pick the more bizarre names from the scriptures. I'm still waiting for Baphomet Phelps).70.242.4.182 01:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anybody have an accurate number on the amount of members? 

message: Hall Monitor, did you even read the article before you sent me a message accusing me of vandalism, threatened to  have me banned, and RVed my edits? Fred Phelps delivered a sermon on October 2nd, 2005, in which he accused George Bush of masturbating horses. This was already written in the article before I edited it! All I did was:
1) Changed "president of the United States" to specify Bush
2) Moved the quote to a more appropriate place within the paragraph
All you did by RVing my edit was change Bush back to "president" and move the quote.70.243.32.96 02:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Masturbating Horses" 

message: Some folks have objected, that someone like Phelps does not deserve such an extensive article, which may serve merely to publicize him.  As the saying goes, there's no such thing as bad publicity.
And it's true, every time I see a new item about Phelps and his antics, I wonder if Phelps really cares about how atrocious he is, as long as he gets coverage.  And I wonder if Phelps  really does qualify as news, beyond the media's quest for the lurid.  So in this regard, one might question the value of any article on this puke.
One good precedent is Hitler.  There have been many really fine books written about Hitler, and they leave no doubt as to his evil.  Nevertheless, so fascinated by Hitler and the Nazis, and despite my revulsion at their evil, I find myself replaying Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will for its visceral appeal.  So I wonder: if Nazis can have such an effect on one who fancies himself in control of his animal impulses, could this quasi-Nazi Phelps likewise appeal to those who are unrestrained in giving vent to their visceral urges, much like animals who perform analingus because they can.  Regardless of merit, does this article rate a single gay bashing it may provoke?
When I saw the length of this article, I was a bit dismayed for the above reasons.  Then, I read it.  The authors and editors have creatied a very well-informed and well-documented article on Fred Phelps.  It is certainly a good candidate for Featured Article.  Should anyone find exculpatory documentation or wish to present "the other side," that's what wiki is for.  The claim that the article is subjective because Phelps is pure controversy is nonsense.  Phelps is to homophobia as Hitler is to anti-Semitism.  They are both examples of pernicious notions when carried to logical (or illogical) extremes, and for this, their coverage is justified if for no other reason than edification.  In articles about terrorism or the Holocaust, we are not required to present the side of mass murderers, just to achieve balance.   
For Alan Bullock's Hitler, a Study in Tyranny, we might call this article, "Fred Phelps, a Study in Hatred". 
:::J M Rice 16:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Dilemma 

message: *Phelps' hatred for Finns began on 1998, when a Finnish national, name withdrawn by request, humiliated him on a religious debate.
Withdrawn where? The religious debate? The media coverage? Wikipedia itself?
If it's Wikipedia itself, who has the authority to honor such requests for withdrawal? Anyone could add the name. Is this information readily available in external sources or not? If it is, how do we justify not citing them? (If it is not, we don't need justification for leaving it out; Wikipedia is not a primary source and we don't add "facts" just because they exist.)
If the information is deemed unencyclopedic (I could see this) we should just remove the "name withdrawn by request" phrase. We're not made to look better by confessing that we have the information but are censoring ourselves. JRM · Talk 20:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I could not find a source for anything in this paragraph. An anonymous user added it in late September, basically in its current form, without giving a reference. Ashibaka tock 23:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  then the "name withdrawn by request" is not only unencylcopedic but it's blatantly untrue - wikipedians didn't remove his name by request, it was never there in the first place.  I was rather suprised to have seen this after Wikipedia's problem in germany: but now it makes sense (it's disinformation) Lordkazan 14:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Finnish national 

message: :As the Finnish police stated that his safety cannot be guaranteed should he arrive in Finland, and that should he carry out his intentions he would be arrested and sentenced for treason on account of defacing the national flag, he never carried through his threat.
Phelps isn't Finnish—how could he possibly commit treason against Finland? Does Finland have a different definition of "treason" or is another crime intended here? Defacement of the national flag could be a crime in itself, but then no treason would be involved for foreigners. JRM · Talk 20:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've no idea about Finland, but British law allows a non-national to be tried and convicted on charges of treason; see R v Ahlers for a high-profile case in this vein. 81.110.86.44 06:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is interesting since it seems to make no sense; "treason" is understood to mean betrayal by a trusted person or in the case of states, acts of sedition by a national. You would expect those charged to at least have former ties to a country. Regrettably, I wouldn't know how to look up the case mentioned, high-profile as it may be. JRM · Talk 13:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Ties to the country" need not necessarily mean they are a national, though, it seems to be a question of location (which was one of the matters discussed in Ahlers 91 years ago, though the defendant was acquitted in that case); most countries have conditions of entry which include undertaking to abide by that state's laws for the duration of your stay, so the idea is that if you are living in or visiting a country, and you engage in acts which if committed by a national would be triable as treasonous, you get charged with treason. I believe this applies whether the act in question was also a criminal offence in its own right (i.e. trying to kill the President or something), or whether it's an act which is only illegal because it's treasonous (i.e. the aforementioned flag burning). I think that's it, anyway.
* No, it's just wrong. Burning the flag is not grounds for treason in Finland. The crime is "Suomen lipun häpäisemisestä" ("Disgracing the flag of Finland") as per Laki Suomen lipusta (Law on Finland's Flag) 26.5.1978/380, paragraph 8. I'll remove the "treason" remark. It's not even a jailable offense. --BluePlatypus 20:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treason? 

message: I'm adding an image from a 2004 Topeka City Council meeting as the main image, vs. the 2001 image from his webpage. It's more recent of a photo (he's changed a bit in the ensuing years), and it also demonstrates some of the physical malformities mentioned in the "Health" entry. Mistergrind 00:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  2004 Image 

message: The main article states that Fred et al. have been arrested numerous times in Canada.  This, to the best of my knowledge, is not the case.  A group of his followers (but not Fred) did visit Canada to protest, and did have their signs taken a way at customs, and did have a hotel concel their registration after they found out more about their guests.  But no arrests.  
Unless someone can provide backing to the arrests, that section needs to be drastically altered.
Michael Voytinsky 07:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada ? 

message: This sentence rings a little of POV, unless sourced:
:By this time, Phelps had forced several of his children to go through law school -- getting them accepted through the help of Washburn employee and Westboro member Karl Hockenbarger -- and formed a law firm with them, Phelps Chartered.
Is there a source for the "forced" wording?  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forced? 

message: When exactly did Fred Say that Dubya worships Mr. Peanut?
* It's in a WBC Flyer. Now that I've actually sourced everything I wish I'd saved the link; I do remember there being a picture of GWB in the lower right-hand corner of the flyer with his hands behind his back, bent over and looking down.70.242.10.213 21:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: George Bush Worships Mr. Peanut