Jump to content

Talk:Westboro Baptist Church/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Hackings by Anonymous

The hacktivist group known as Anonymous have done it again to the Westboro Baptist Church. This time, they hacked into their Facebook page and made all sorts of changes to the page, such as putting up positive images and links to many of their YouTube videos. There have also been many responses by many users on Facebook. Below is their page so you can see it for yourselves:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Westboro-Baptist-Church/400347320041300

I don't know if the church has many changes or fixings to their page on Facebook, but their page looked like an endorsement for Anonymous after this latest hacking by them.

I just thought that I would share this latest news. Any thoughts or comments? Frschoonover (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)t

I removed a similar claim. There is no indication the page in question A) is Westboro's official page and B) was hacked by Anonymous. Yes, the page says it is Westboro's. That does not mean it is. Yes, the page compliments Anonyomous. That doesn't mean it was "hacked". By looking back in through the page, there is a lot of irrelevant stuff: stuff any person might put on their FB page, but not likely to have been put there by Westboro or someone seeking to mock them. March 27's "Defend Equality" rainbow mixes with March 24's cute observation about a Disney film. Without an independent reliable source saying Anonymous hacked this specific page, we don't know that they did any such thing. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 April 2013

[Clear BLP violation redacted] Hannahlou92x (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

☒N Not done and not likely to be done no source, and most likely a WP:BLP violation. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 19:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

"Baptist" - self-proclaimed?

Threaded discussion

I added "self-proclaimed" before "Baptist" in the lead, but I was reverted by NatGertler. The church is not a member of any of the two major Baptist denominations (Baptist World Alliance and the Southern Baptist Convention), and they have been denounced as not being Baptist by both. The church has no ties to any other Baptist church or denomination. If you search for "Westboro Baptist Church "not baptist"" on Google, you get tons of reliable sources saying that they are not Baptist. Therefore, I think it is appropriate to call it "self-proclaimed Baptist". LiquidWater 18:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

it is not our job to judged if a group is properly baptist, and any group you site can be described as self-proclaimed. Even churches that are members ofvthose groups proclaim themselves to be baptist. We cover their lack of involvement in those groups. -Nat Gertler (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Added to note: Looking at the results of your search, I don't see the "tons of reliable sources" in those search results; perhaps you can point to examples? The results I see coming up are a lot of unreliable source sites; on the ones that are reliable source sites, the "not Baptist" phrase turns out to be in the comments, which aren't reliable. But I could be missing some. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, the difference between those churches and the WBC is that they are commonly accepted as Baptist, while the WBC is far from commonly accepted as being Baptist. We should not call the church "Baptist" without mentioning that there are very few others than themselves who claim that they actually are Baptist and adhere to the Baptist denomination. LiquidWater 19:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
The fact that the larger denominations shun them is covered in the introduction. But we need to be precise in that, rather than building a system for us to cast our own aspersions on their Baptisticishness. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Let me cite the Norwegian third-party NRK ([1]): "Westboro Baptist Church is not regarded as an evangelical church, but as a religious sect. They claim to speak on behalf of God, and has a strong commitment against homosexuality." "Self-proclaimed Baptist" - [2]. There is a strong opinion that they are not Baptist, and we should not give undue weight to the few who claim that they actually are Baptists. LiquidWater 20:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Saying they're a religious sect does not mean that they are not Baptist. And the "New Gay" quote is 1) not about the church but about an individual, and 2) is cut away from the full phrase, which is "self-proclaimed Baptist minister". If someone describes me as a "self-proclaimed balding superhunk", it doesn't mean that others don't consider me to be balding. And giving the group themselves weight on their religious identification is not undue weight; it is actually the standard with individuals on Wikipedia. If others want to raise the question of the validity of their self-identification, we can address that - and do in this article. But that doesn't make it appropriate for us to directly deny or demean that self-identification. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
And in the interest of correctness, let me note that the source that referred to Phelps as a "self-proclaimed Baptist minister" appears to be incorrect; the sources I'm seeing say that he was ordained within the structure of the SBC in 1947. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Religions split. Each splinter claims it is "the" faith. We can easily find sources stating that any given church is not X, Y or Z, though the church itself claims it it X, Y and Z. The best way to handle this, IMO, is self-labeling: "WBC states they are X, Y and Z". Otherwise, we're left with having to explain that the "Roman Catholic" faith is neither specifically "Roman" nor necessarily "catholic". If various Baptist groups wish to state that WBC is not "Baptist", they are free to do so. If independent reliable sources cover their statement, we might mention it. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

As the old joke goes, the Holy Roman Empire was none of those three things. It didn't stop them from calling themselves that. If the WBC want to call themselves a Baptist church, then we should report it as such. If the other Baptists don't like that self-identification, then we can report that, too. I don't see any reason to editorialize on the subject. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
And until Voltaire/Mike Myers points it out, we have nothing to say about it. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I've added some structural elements to the RFC section to guide our discussion. I think that the lead as it stands is sufficient in terms of content (I don't think that we should add self-proclaimed unless there are overwhelming WP:RS that use that terminology. Felps claims to be a Baptist, and Wikipedia tends to follow what people claim of themselves if they are currently living), perhaps we could shift the last section (that describes that they are not claimed by any Baptist group) up to the end of the first paragraph to make it more prominent and obvious that their claim is not a claim that other Baptists support. ReformedArsenal (talk) 11:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

But... they are Baptist. That is to say, they hold to Believer's baptism. But that presumably isn't what people mean when they say WBC is "not Baptist". I would have more of a problem with the "Calvinist" label, which is not discussed at all in the article. StAnselm (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Believer's baptism isn't the only halmark of Baptist theology. The things that push them outside of Calvinism would also push them outside of being a Baptist (Denying faith duty particularly, as well as denying the free offer of grace to all). I would also think that their Church Polity verges on not being congregational (I can't find anything on their site regarding their Polity, but it seems as though Felps calls the shots, and there is no mention of an elder board anywhere, nor of congregational votes). ReformedArsenal (talk) 11:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
From the first paragraph of the Baptists article:
Baptists are Christians who comprise a group of denominations and churches that subscribe to a doctrine that baptism should be performed only for professing believers (believer's baptism, as opposed to infant baptism), and that it must be done by immersion (as opposed to affusion or sprinkling). Other tenets of Baptist churches include soul competency (liberty), salvation through faith alone, scripture alone as the rule of faith and practice, and the autonomy of the local congregation. Baptists recognize two ministerial offices, pastors and deacons. Baptist churches are widely considered to be Protestant churches, though some Baptists disavow this identity.
Which of these things would not apply to WBC? Historically, the Gospel Standard Baptists denied faith duty - plenty of people might say they were wrong, but few would say they weren't "real" baptists. StAnselm (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Most theological definitions I've read include that they follow a congregational model of polity. The source cited on the Baptist page at the end of the lead is from a blog... and the author's credentials are in Tibetan and Indian Hinduism... and 19th century spirtuality. He also writes in the article (the blog post, not the wiki-article) that Baptists came from Ana-Baptists... which is a highly contentious view that is definitely not accepted as the standard. Looks like I've found my next project... ReformedArsenal (talk) 10:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This conversation is extremely depressing. Editors are trying to work out theological issues for themselves, when reliable sources like NRK were already presented showing WBC as a sect independent of Baptism. This desire to take theology into your own hands is not only against Wikipedia policies, it's the same process that got WBC started in the first place. Shii (tock) 23:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm failing to understand why an unsourced claim about a US church in a publication from Norway should be considered as gospel authority on the matter. The church says it's Baptist. That's all the article needs to say. If there's some controversy surrounding whether or not they're a sect independent of Baptism, then that controversy had better be well-represented in scholarly sources before we even think about mentioning it in the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I was just looking at the Google translation of the NRK article, and I don't see anything in it claiming that it is "independent of Baptism". It claims that it's "not considered an evangelical church, but as a religious sect", but a) there is a difference between what something is considered is different from what it is, and b) a sect by its nature is an offshoot or subset of another belief system, so being a sect does not mean it's not Baptist. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Is that what we need here? Sources? Okay.

Shii (tock) 01:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I should also point out that the WBC doesn't claim to be evangelical, so the Norwegian source's statement on that is irrelevant (quite apart from the fact that "evangelical" has a range of meanings, and is used differently in Europe and America). Also, none of the sources mentioned above say that WBC isn't a Baptist church - they point out what they are denominationally unaffiliated, which we all knew, and which the article clearly states. StAnselm (talk) 02:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. The Southern Baptist Convention does not own Baptistic Christianity, any more than they own Christianity. There are whole categories of Baptist churches not affiliated with those organizations... take a look at this page on Independent Fundamental Baptist Church, if you want to see some such not-within-the-big-organizations churches taking on the whole concept of who is a True Baptist. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe most readers will be greatly interested in whether they are 'true' baptists in any theological sense. A section treating the question of whether they are or are not Baptists in various senses is fine, but an editorialising 'self-proclaimed' implies too much a point of view that there is an official definition that they fall outside of. William Avery (talk) 07:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I also don't think it's useful to insert the term "non-denominational" into the lede when a minority of our sources use that description. "Independent Baptist church" seem the most reasonable way of describing this organization and is not at odds with how the organization describes itself. If the article was about a major church, then a strict theological interpretation would probably be more relevant. - MrX 11:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I may be the only one who sees a possible distinction of tone here, but while I agree that adding "self-proclaimed" to the description comes perilously close to claims, I would not oppose a phrasing such as:

The Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) is an American church founded in 1955. WBC identifies as an "Old School (or Primitive) Baptist Church" and is known for its extreme ideologies, especially those against gay people.

(To be honest, my exact phrasing above seems a bit clunky to me, but you get the idea. The year founded is just to avoid a "See Spot run." effect; substitute factoid of choice.) Fat&Happy (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the sourcing is on this identification, but we don't tend to say that churches identify as serving a belief structure; we accept their self-identification and treat it as fact, and it should not be different here. So if we have a source for them embracing those labels, we can put them on ("A Primitive Baptist church, the WBC is known"...) I do find them identifying as a TULIP Baptist church, though. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
http://www.godhatesfags.com/wbcinfo/aboutwbc.html Fat&Happy (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Rather than putting in both of the basically synonymous terms, we should stick with one, particularly since it's wikilinkable: "A Primitive Baptist church, the WBC is known"... --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm responding here having been notified through the RfC system. I speak from a British perspective where "Baptist" has a different meaning to "Baptist" in the US although the term has, of course, the same origins. The key point to me is that Baptist is a theological term - i.e. describing the belief system taught by the church - rather than an organisational one - i.e. describing their membership in the Southern Baptist Convention. "Self-proclaimed" would seem to be tautological in this sense - rather like being a "self-proclaimed Christian". With that in mind the current description - "unaffiliated Baptist" - seems like the most appropriate description. AndrewRT(Talk) 21:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
This is a meaningful discussion, but I am not sure why all this should be in the lede. Just make a new section and discuss whether WBC is a member of baptist denominations. The lede right now seems pretty balanced to me.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Independent Baptist terminology

We have to avoid using the term Independent Baptist in describing WBC; while they are independent and while they are Baptist (to our ability to officially discern), that combination of two words has an additional meaning (as you will see at the wikilink) that we do not have sourced as applying to this group. Assuming my Internet is back up later today, I will excise it from the article myself. (IPad is not the ideal wikiediting device.) -Nat Gertler (talk) 19:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I can see dropping it from the infobox, where it doesn't add too much and creates ambiguity, but is excision necessary in the opening sentence as long as "independent" is not capitalized, which sort of distinguishes it as a descriptive adjective rather than the proper name of a group? Fat&Happy (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I think it wisest to best avoid the confusing term, rather than pulling the reader into the pilpul that there are independent Baptist churches that are not Independent Baptist churches. If its lack of affiliation ought be mentioned, then better to use the term "unaffiliated". --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's get some consensus on adding events

The instant addition of their comments on today's tornado just points to something that I've been meaning to bring up for a while: whenever they tweet in the wake of a tragedy, some website somewhere will point out that they made the tweet, and frequently, someone will add that to the page. While this is an understandable instinct, what this ends up doing is basically building a list of tragedies in America. They do so many protests and tweet so many things that offend folks that it's really largely trivia, and the article could end up nigh-infinite under this method.

I would like to suggest that unless a given announcement gets truly substantial coverage, major press coverage about that announcement and its reaction, we leave it out until it shows up in some blanket article on the WBC.

Concur? Disagree? Countersuggest? --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree. A tweet is a primary source (which we generally avoid) and a self-published one to boot. While I have no concern over this being little more than a list of tragedies, I am bothered that we are creating a trivial list, based on our assumptions of which tweets we should include. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Let's not make this article a soapbox for their insane rants public comments. - MrX 20:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Completely agree. According to the article, they say there have been over 40,0000 protests as of four years ago. This is becoming the equivalent of having our article on dogs list every dog-bites-man incident in the country, then deciding that in the interests of completeness we need to also list all the cases where a dog growled at a person even if no actual bite was confirmed.
As a starting point, and realizing that circumstances often alter cases, I'd like to propose a few tentative guidelines:
  • Announcements of plans to appear, whether on Twitter, their web sites, or a full-page add in the Wall Street Journal, should not be included.
  • Actual appearances protesting events should probably not be included unless covered in at least two or three major news outlets such as national TV network sites (not just local stations), newspapers outside the market area of the protest with daily circulation of 100,000 or more, major weekly news magazines (Time, U.S. News, etc.)
  • Protests cancelled because of counter-protest activity would be treated like actual protests if their appearance at the event is actually confirmed (not "a maid at a local motel said she saw someone who looked like Shirley Phelps-Roper the previous evening.")
Undoubtedly a few things I haven't mentioned, but this is intended as a discussion starter. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
What about incidents where people strike back against WBC, like the recent hacking of their site? CodeCat (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Concur. --averagejoe (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

20. WBC stands on the Netherlands

After the plane crash on 25th February 2009 on Schiphol airport, The Netherlands, it was reported that the WBC where going to try to picket the rememberance service of those who died during the plane crash. Also it has been reported that they have been spreading pamflets which stated "God hates the Netherlands" because of the liberal opinion of the Netherlands regarding the LGBT community.

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/23307/westboro-baptist-church-13 http://sjeltur.nl/westboro-baptist-church-goin-dutch http://static.rnw.nl/migratie/www.radionetherlands.nl/thenetherlands/criticaleye/090306-god-hates-holland-redirected http://www.godhatesfags.com/written/fliers/20090225_netherlands-amsterdam-plane-crash.pdf

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.239.18 (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2011‎ (UTC)

Media Coverage - Add Fox News Sean Hannity Interview?

The interview with Sean Hannity (can easily find it on YouTube) is very telling about their beliefs, and the interviewee does not refute that they have nothing to do with any other Baptists. They also proclaim that we should thank God for 9/11, no one who was killed was "innocent", and that it was God who struck them all down, punishing them and us justly for our sins which include accepting homosexuality. Essentially every time something tragic occurs, they claim it is evidence that God is striking us down and punishing us for not condemning gays, as it is his will to condemn the gays. [ They do sound like a hate group masquerading as a Church, and (redacted) ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjpr2121 (talk • contribs) 12:15, May 11, 2013‎

Chief Justice William Rehnquist funeral picket

May I suggest, under the funeral picket section, Chief Justice William Rehnquist's funeral be added. Members picket his state funeral in 2005. Be a very notable man, I think it would be good to add this information. here are just a few references. http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Exclusive_Antigay_forces_protest_at_Rehnquist_death_celebra_0918.html It also mentions the picket in this article http://voices.yahoo.com/heath-ledger-funeral-picketed-controversial-839877.html. Thank you for the consideration. Boopydoo1234 (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

We're actually likely to be paring back on the listings of individual funeral pickets, per discussion above. (Sorry folks, been meaning to get to it, but juggling a lot of things at the moment.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 08:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Letter

On the old page listing activities by the Westboro Baptist Church, there was a link to a news article about them sending a nasty letter to a dead child's parents. Shouldn't this be included in this article?--76.106.245.93 (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Only if it was given substantial coverage by independent reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Would anyone here happen to have a link to what I'm talking about? Also, what happened to the separate page listing their activities?--76.106.245.93 (talk) 04:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Racial and political views of the Westboro Baptist Church was merged here back in 2006. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Racial_and_political_views_of_the_Westboro_Baptist_Church.. Finding a single item mentioned in this article at some unknown point in the past is a pretty tall order. You'd probably have an easier time using Google to find another source for it - SummerPhD (talk) 05:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
No, it wasn't that one. It was an article listing all of their activities. Many of the claims were obviously made up, but this particular incident had an actual source.--76.106.245.93 (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I also recall the article recounting how they tried (and failed) to erect a public monument to Matthew Shepard having "entered Hell".--76.106.245.93 (talk) 04:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

protest that did not occur

Footnotes 60 - 62, as of today, note that the church did not protest at a funeral. This doesn't seem relevant to include things the members did not do. I will trim and allow discussion later under WP:BOLDPolkadreamer (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand the unease people feel with deleting sourced material, yet the article is long on sources with protests that actually occurred. It should reflect events, not a lack of events.Polkadreamer (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The significance applies where the church planned to picket a funeral and failed to do so. If this happens often enough it is (or can be) a notable failure on their part and may be a sign of waning influence. Britmax (talk) 08:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Those exiting the church

If we cover today's news' it should be within the context of a more general section on those who exited the church. -Nat Gertler (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree -- there should be a section (maybe titled "Defections"?) taking about those family members who have left the church. There have been several over the years. T-bonham (talk) 10:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's assume we were working on an article on the Roman Catholic Church. We wouldn't have a list of those who left, though high-profile examples would crop up somewhere (Martin Luther and Henry VIII come to mind). We wouldn't say they "defected" from the Catholic Church. Yes, there has been coverage of some who have left Westboro. WP:WEIGHT is also a concern. A long laundry list of those who have left the church is no more useful than a long laundry list of those the church says their god hates. I'd say we need a brief section with well-sourced discussion, mentioning the higher profile people who have left. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

There can't be a long laundry list on those who exit, because Westboro is a very small organization. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Understood, but a brief list of fairly trivial material here is similar in value to an extensive list of fairly trivial material in another article. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I looked up the article to find a list of people who left over the last few years to get an insight how many people in relation to the remaining ones left and how old they were. I was rather disappointed to only find rather general remarks that are pretty much worthless. I'll now have to compile a list from the latest Louis Theroux piece and media reports. I'm pretty sure other people would like to have a list too, so I think this section should be expanded. This also makes sense since the people have a certain media status and are pretty known amongst those interested in the topic, especially thanks to the Theroux documentaries. And I disagree with SummerPhD. Such a list is very well useful. Comparing it to a religion that consists of a billion people is rather ridiculous. WBC has rather small and many members are well known due to media coverage, so people actually can relate the information to something. 77.7.232.56 (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Some people who have left the church have been discussed in independent reliable sources. Those we can include, to the extent that their inclusion does not violate WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE and WP:BLP1E. Others will have left the church quietly; primary sources might document this, but we cannot include them. Without discussing those who fall in the middle, it is obvious we will not/cannot build a meaningfully complete list here. If such material as age at leaving is genuinely of interest to readers, reliable sources will discuss it. If not they won't. If they discuss it, we might. If they don't, we won't. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I came here looking for exactly this, so it's disappointing that it's not seen as notable enough. 90.216.207.183 (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I came to this article after reading a newspaper piece [3]which mentions that the founders granddaughters had left the church, having never heard of WBC before I looked then up and was surprised to find it was not mentioned here, I understand what SummerPhd is saying, in that a full list of people leaving is not possible, however she also states that "Some people who have left the church have been discussed in independent reliable sources. Those we can include" I am sure I am not the only person to believe that the founders grandchildren are significant people to have left and as it is discussed in other media then surely it should be included in the article? It would also appear that I am not the only one looking for this information. Amanda138a (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, please see WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE and WP:BLP1E. Most of the people who are or were members of this church are and are likely to remain low-profile individuals. If they publish a book or run the talk show circuit, we might include material about them from high quality secondary reliable sources. People known only for having left the church are clearly a different story. Wikipedia exists to summarize what reliable sources say about a topic, not to gather and compile data. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

God hates Fangs

I am curious as to how the "God hates Fangs" parody in the opening credits of True Blood is any more personal research than God hates Shrimp. This is clearly a parody of the "God hates Fags," and one that is prominent in popular media, being seen by millions of people. Since it a take on the Westboro Baptist placards with the edition of only an 'n'. The citation though not as formal as many is to a direct link to the opening credits, which clearly depicts the "God hates Fangs" parody.

Beyond the fact that the YouTube clip seems to be a clear copyright violation, it makes no reference to Westboro. While the other sites are a bit weak as far as secondary sources go, they at least have clear references to Phelps or the church. Even a brief chuckling comment about the opening shot and Phelps or Westboro in some published interview with someone involve with True Blood would be nice. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Are these more acceptable references? Both are academic:

"And True Blood's opening title sequence shows a billboard that converts the famous anti-gay slogan of Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, "God hates fags," to "God hates fangs," p. 128 William Irwin. True Blood and Philosophy. Hoboken NJ: Wiley & Sons, 2011

"Or to take another example, contrast the fervid discussions of sexual orientation and political community in recent political campaigns with even the most outlandish Southern Gothic storylines of Alan Ball's True Blood; even the shows opening credits riffing on the Westboro Baptist Church with an evangelical church sign reading "God Hates Fangs," . . ." from Paul Zinder's "The World is Less than Perfect" Nontraditional family structures in Deadwood. The Last Western: Deadwood and the End of American Empire. Editors Jennifer Greiman, Paul Stasi. New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013. p. 198 Stealthepiscopalian

Edit request on 26 October 2013

Is this site applicable as a protest site against the WBC? http://www.god-does-not-hate-fags.com Tshcomm (talk) 13:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Please explain exactly what change you want made to the article. That site won't be be mentioned in the article unless it has received in-depth coverage from secondary sources like newspapers. --NeilN talk to me 15:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request, 1 December 2013

In relation to the recent and untimely death of the Fast and Furious actor, Paul Walker, the WBC have announced they intend to protest his funeral, via their twitter feed here and here. I feel this should be added to the list of protests they have announced. JoshR92 (talk) 11:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Twitter is not a reliable source. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

(Safe assumption: Any funeral that is in the news is potentially a venue for a WBC protest). Rather than a lengthy and useless list of all of their protests, we report what independent reliable sources say about their activities. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for the answers :) JoshR92 (talk) 12:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources

It looks like an editor or three has done some digging through WBC's websites looking for whatever material they considered, um, noteworthy. By "noteworthy", of course, I mean "damning". Yeah, I get it. That said, virtually all of the material from primary sources simply does not belong here. To the extent that independent reliable sources discuss an aspect of WBC, we should be summarizing and including it. Digging through their garbage for content, though, is no way to build an objective article. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2014

Please correct spellings of perform (once), performed (twice) and trespassing (once)

On July 14, 2013, members of a Satanic sect called the "Satanic Temple" performed 'pink mass' rituals over Catherine Idalette Johnson's grave, located in Meridian, Mississippi. Johnson is the mother of Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) founder Pastor Fred Phelps. According to Lucien Graves, the church member who preformed the rituals, the ordinances post-humorously transformed the sexual orientation of Johnson from that of heterosexual to homosexual.[1] The ritual was preformed both times for a lesbian and gay couple were represented.[2]Graves commented that the church was also trying to raise awareness for an Indiegogo fund raising campaign to adopt a highway, but Graves also notes that protest could also be an effective counter protest against anyone propagating 'anti-gay' hysteria in the future. Graves threaten the WBC from continuing to conduct 'anti-gay' protest such as picketing. The "Satanic Temple" will target the tombs of Phelp's ancestors such as his father and Grand-Aunt with 'pink mass' rituals.[3]

Scunnyjim (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Done, with some quotation mark fixes as a bonus. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 05:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I threw in a "posthumously" as well. - Nunh-huh 06:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Goldman, Russel.'Satanists preform 'gay ritual' at Westboro Gravesite'. July 18, 2013. ABC NEWS. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/07/satanists-perform-gay-ritual-at-westboro-gravesite/ Retrieved December 8, 2013
  2. ^ Barnette,Candace.'MPD Expects to file charges in cemetery tresspassing'.July 20,2013.ABC WTOK.http://www.wtok.com/news/headlines/MPD-Expects-to-File-Charges-in-Cemetery-Trespassing--216302111.html. retrieved December 8,2013/
  3. ^ Didymus, John-Thomas. 'Satanic Temple preforms 'gay ritual' at Westboro Baptist grave'. July 21, 2013. Digital Journal. http://digitaljournal.com/article/354838 retrieved 8,2013

News about to burst

With the reports about what was on Nathan Phelps's Facebook page, there are likely to be attempts to insert its statements into the article. Please realize that we are dealing with a WP:BLP issue here, that we should wait until there is WP:RS confirmation of Fred Phelps's situation rather than just echoing of the statement of his son. (I would not be surprised if we had such sourcing soon.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Although this[4] just repeats his son's statement, it does show that it has started to hit the conventional media. Dougweller (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok, CBS, again quoting his son.[5] Dougweller (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2014

Since Phelps has been excommunicated from the church, you should remove him as minister. --76.105.96.92 (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC) 76.105.96.92 (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

That source (and others that are arising) are simply citing Nathan Phelps's statement; as Nathan is neither part of the church organization (and thus part of who would be stating ex-communication) nor a reliable third-party source, we cannot accept the statement as verifiable fact at this time (and in fact, in other sources the WBC has contradicted some of what Nathan says in that statement, although not addressing the question of excommunication). Once we have a reliable source on the elder Phelps's status (and I suspect that will be soon), then the article should be updated. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
His bio has all of this now. Dougweller (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Unless they have some more appropriate sources, it's still not time to put it here. I don't have time at the moment to go all BLP on the Phelps article. Besides, the only part that is relevant to this article is the possible excommunication; the state of his health is not relevant here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The previous version that mentions that the WBC members "believe they are immortal" is also incorrect according the cite given (TheThinkingAtheist interview with Nate Phelps). They simply believe they'll be alive for the Second Coming, and be assumed into heaven before they die. Quite different. (Sorry if this comment is in the wrong section, I'm pretty new to Talk pages.) mjconnor10 (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Extreme

I wonder whether it is correct to call the WBC an extreme group because of its opposition to homosexuality. Such opposition is widespread, and cannot be called extreme. Isn't it the methods of the church which have attracted criticism?Royalcourtier (talk) 05:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Here we get into the "hate the sin, love the sinner" discussion. It is common for people to hate homosexuals. It is common for people to believe G-d hates homosexuality. It is extreme to believe that G-d hates homosexuals. Not that the WBC stops at that... --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

2010 Comic-Con Protest and Counter-Protest

I know the issue has been addressed before, but why has their protest at the 2010 Comic-Con, and the hilarious counter-protest been removed from the article? (http://comicsalliance.com/super-heroes-vs-the-westboro-baptist-church/)? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

While we still need to clean this up some, we faced a problem where folks were adding every announced demonstration for a celebrity death and every counterprotest, and there are just too many of them. What we're using as a guideline is not "is there an article on this particular protest" but "is this protest one of the ones that gets mentioned in more general articles in significant sources covering the WBC?" That gives us some indication of which ones are seen as really speaking to the situation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The way things are said

It says in one place that they announced they would picket the victims of sandy hook elementary funeral, why doesn't it say if they did or not? It actually has statements like that in a few pages. Thanks, Reedman72 (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Camp Lejune deletion

After a diligent search I was unable to find any RS for the allegation that someone "spat" in the face of Shirley Phelps-Roper at Camp Lejune or that there were "40 protesters" and "150 counter-protesters." Blog references located with searches referred to other blogs and one referred to a Kansas City Star story that did not include any support for the cite but instead referred to a Ft. Leavenworth funeral. Activist (talk) 04:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

God hates figs needs neutralized

The section about parodies is inappropriately disparaging of the Christian faith and inaccurate to the point of confusion. There is one story in the Bible about Jesus expressing anger related to figs, though it is told both in Matthew and Mark.

Current document reads as such:

"Documentation given out at various counter-protests cite biblical verses[195] in which Jesus says that none should eat the fruit of a fig tree (Mark 11:12–14), in which Jesus causes a fig tree to wither (Matthew 21:18–20), and in which God promises, as a punishment, to make someone like bad figs (Jeremiah 29:17). These are genuine citations, but are not the sole mentions of figs in the Bible."

Please edit this paragraph, which seems to lose its neutral tone in the end, to be more informative regarding God's relationship with figs throughout the Bible and less of a snarky attack on the subject of the article. Using the Mark passage and the Matthew passage to create the illusion that there is more fig-hating in the Bible than there really is, while clever on the part of the counter-protesters, is irresponsible in a forum like Wikipedia, where presumably readers want unbiased and factual information as free as possible from hyperbole and other rhetorical tactics. I would advise an editor (and I will be one in four days) to remove all argument from the document and word it simply, "Documentation given out at various counter-protests cite genuine, out-of-context biblical verses that suggest God's disapproval of figs in order to demonstrate the ease with which scripture can be perverted to one's own purposes." Interactive Illuminatus (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The Christians of Westboro say God hates pretty much everyone and everything, with the possible exceptions of themselves and figs (they apparently couldn't find a pro-gay stance they could attribute to figs). Lest some be led to believe that God really does unjustly hate figs we need to be more careful with our wording. We do not have independent reliable sources saying that God hates this particular fruit. Does WP:BLP apply to the resurrected? - SummerPhD (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
The section already has a link to our page on figs in the Bible; it would seem to far from the topic of this article to be putting a debate about how God feels about figs here, rather than just reporting what the protest is. I am not sure what sort of reliable source you would expect for how God feels about figs. The claim that this is an example of scriptural perversion would seem to be quite POV. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —cyberpower ChatOnline 12:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2014

In section 4.9 "Parodies" please change: "Other sites and organizations have parodied the slogans of the Westboro Baptist Church, including God Hates Fred Phelps,[197] God Hates Bags,[198] and God Hates Shrimp.[199] The Cooper family in Kevin Smith's 2011 film Red State was reportedly inspired by the Westboro Baptist Church.[200]"

To read: "Other sites and organizations have parodied the slogans of the Westboro Baptist Church, including God Hates Fred Phelps,[197] God Hates Bags,[198] God Hates Shrimp, [199] and God Hates Figs.[200] The Cooper family in Kevin Smith's 2011 film Red State was reportedly inspired by the Westboro Baptist Church.[201]"

Please update footnotes #200 and higher to be #201 and higher and insert footnote #200 as [200] "God hates Figs". God Hates Figs. Retrieved xxx xx, xxxx. The external reference is www.godhatesfigs.org

The website is a political blog with a large proportion of posts being about LGBT issues.

Thank you. 134.50.159.33 (talk) 08:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Done, Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually each one of those organizations should have a cite to a secondary source to show notability or be removed. --NeilN talk to me 14:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Religious Foundation of the WBC - where is it?

Nowhere in this article can I find a section dealing with the religious beliefs of the WBC; their views on various matters which are of concern to their opponents are spoken of, with a few quotes from the Church as to their reasons, but surely there should be a section dealing with their theological stance and their ideology - in fact that would seem crucial, given that that is the very basis of their protests (which get far more coverage than the Church's actual doctrine).

The piece doesn't seem to be very neutral - I understand that people despise them, and with good reason - but that is no excuse for pretending that the WBC is somehow not the same as the thousands of Christian denominations extant. Phelps Junior is quoted as saying "If I had to take my family to court and convict them of being followers of Christ, I am not sure where I would find the evidence". well personally I suspect the reverse may be true, as it cannot honestly be denied that he is following injunctions from the Christian Bible. But how can anyone know the truth - or otherwise - of Phelps Jr's quote unless they have the information?

Wikipedia should be an unbiased source of information; it is sad to see how easily and without challenge Wiki can be reduced to propaganda against those who we agree to dislike. Tarquin Q. Zanzibar 01:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Badboy! (talk • contribs)

Did you read Westboro_Baptist_Church#Church_views? --NeilN talk to me 01:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

wording of Matthew Shephard's murder

At "Funeral pickets" section, should this statement "beaten to death by two men allegedly because of his homosexuality" be edited to "beaten to death by two men because of his homosexuality" (no "allegedly")? Oodri3 (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Only if you can find a source to back this up. Where does the information for your suggested change come from? Britmax (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Cite for Alito quote

The description of the Supreme Court case quotes Justice Alito, with a "citation needed" tag. The quote is the first paragraph of Alito's dissent. The case is SNYDER v. PHELPS ( No. 09-751 ) 580 F. 3d 206. Alito's dissent can be found at https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-751.ZD.html.

PaulJohnson (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@PaulJohnson: Added. Thank you! --NeilN talk to me 14:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The word "other" [9]

In addition to conducting anti-gay protests at military funerals, the organization pickets other celebrity funerals and public events.[9]

I have an issue to the word 'other" in this sentence. The Military is made up of Heroes, not Celebrities. Thank you!

RobinLynnK (talk) 02:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)RobinLynnK

I have addressed the issue. Dustin (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The Pope

Do the church believe that Benedict is/was one of the trilogy stated, or will any pope do? Britmax (talk) 08:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Under section:Counter Protests added section of 'Pink Mass' protests but it was erased by Fat&happy

Here is a V2.0 draft: please don't delete this so I can continue to draft it to Wikipedia perfection. This is what it read as in the V2.0

Gays and lesbians are a hate group. There isn't much info on bing about lesbians being hateful and denying men women. It is hate speech therapist can't tell people they aren't gay... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD5D:AD10:9CB9:8CA9:C466:DE4F (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

On July 14, 2013, Members of a Satanic sect called the "Satanic Temple" preformed 'pink mass' rituals over the grave of Catherine Idalette Johnson located in Meridian, Mississippi. Johnson is the mother of Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) founder Pastor Fred Phelps. According to Lucien Graves, the church member who preformed the rituals, the ordinances post-humorously transformed the sexual orientation of Johnson from that of heterosexual to homosexual.[175] The ritual was preformed both times for a lesbian and gay couple were represented. [176]Graves commented that the church was also trying to raise awareness for an Indiegogo fund raising campaign to adopt a highway, but Graves also notes that protest could also be an effective counter protest against anyone propagating 'anti-gay' hysteria in the future. Graves threaten the WBC from continuing to conduct 'anti-gay' protest such as picketing. The "Satanic Temple" will target Phelps' ancestor's tombs such as his father and Grand-Aunt with 'Pink mass' rituals.[177]

Protected?

Why is this article semi-protected? 97.126.235.119 (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Due to persistent vandalism, see the protection log. RA0808 talkcontribs 22:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Wow. Thanks. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 06:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Westboro Baptist Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

bombing

Someone has added material regarding a bombing incident at the Phelps-Roper home. Unless we have a good source indicating that this was done because of WBC involvement, this perhaps should not be included... and in any case, we may want a better source. The material I can find )which are online unlicensed copies of "Topekan gets 16 days in pipe bomb incident" from the Topeka Capital-Journal in April of 1996, has information at odds with what was just added, indicating a perpetrator who was in his twenties rather than a teen, and an earlier article indicates he was arrested in 1995, not 1996. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Westboro Baptist Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Westboro Baptist Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Financing

Where do they get their money and why don't I see that in the article? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I found the part where it said funding comes from lawsuits. I just added "... According to the Louis Theroux documentary The Most Hated Family in America, members of the Phelps family are expected to have regular jobs and give ten percent of their earnings to the church, and many of them are lawyers..."

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Westboro Baptist Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Soldiers

The article does not explain why the WBC is picketing against soldiers. I think we should add it to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.103.154.53 (talk) 10:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Citations

Okay, I know we should probably have a lot of citations for an article such as this, but this many?

Counter protests are often organized to be held at sites that Westboro Baptist pickets.[43][69][178][179][180][181][182][183][184][185]

how many do we need again? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2017

A law firm is 301 redirecting links from this expired domain to this article. http://www.matthewsnyder.org/ redirects to a commercial law firm.

[1]Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). Alex (talk) 08:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder". Matthewsnyder.org. Retrieved August 30, 2011.

Minor change request

"Members follow the organization's 'literal' interpretation of the Bible which informs their attitudes towards homosexuality and towards Judaism.[32]"

This should contain 'purportedly', or 'they claim', or some such before 'informs'. The interpretations are of course disputed by almost all followers of religions based on the texts in question.

I think that's covered by our stating that it's the organization's interpretation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2021

I can't help but notice that you note that no Baptist organization associates with WBC however, no distinguishing remarks are made to separate WBC from Calvinists or hyper Calvinists. A key component to Calvinism and hyper Calvinism is the doctrine of irresistible grace. While it's true Fred Phelps claims to be Calvinist, if one would take the time to read some of his more hateful statements, you can clearly see he does not actually hold to the doctrine of irresistible grace. Irresistible grace is the critical to Calvinism and is the absolute core of hyper Calvinism. Feel free to study the doctrine of irresistible grace and then( if you can stomach it) read any of the bold statements Phelps has made claiming the certainty that certain people are in hell. It will be quite clear that Phelps does not hold to irresistible grace and therefore his claims of being Calvinist are false. So I request that you grant Calvinism and hyper Calvinism the same distinction from WBC as you do Baptists. thank you. 2600:1007:B020:A1EB:DCC8:CE89:FAD1:17F2 (talk) 13:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Westboro_Baptist_Church/Archive_10&oldid=1142782855"