Talk:Westboro Baptist Church/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

christian fundamentalism?

why is this under the category christian fundamentalism. wbbc is not fundamentalist. ~ joeyyy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abolishthedarkness (talk • contribs) 06:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. They're a fake church and a family of lawyers who make their money off settling out of court with cities who stomp on their free speech rights. Don't give them the pleasure of calling them "fundamentalist" or a "church." 207.238.52.162 (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. This is just another iteration of the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy. Kael (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's not. Fundamentalists would argue that although homosexuality is wrong to them, saying something like "God hates Fags" is pretty bad as well. Stating that "God hates Jews" would be pretty offensive to them (although not all fundamentalists are like John hagee, they'd agree that God doesn't hate groups). WBC claims a lot of things that fundamentalist churchs would most definitely not. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 01:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Major Edits

I've removed a whole bunch of information about individual pickets and media appearances. WBC has participated in so many of both that any serious attempt to catalogue it all - or even some of it, for that matter - would simply lead to a kind of chaos that would drown out the most important facts about that church. Kael (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No way. You can't just gut the article like that without getting some form of consensus. Let's discuss your concerns one at a time per WP:BRD. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for reverting the article and putting back all those broken links and all that useless information about small individual pickets and WBC's appearance in student newspapers etc. I didn't gut the article; I added pertinent information, and removed redundencies - in particular, those that appeared in the section about Albert Snyder. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, bot a novel cataloging every single picket WBC has ever done. I'm going back to revert the page now. Kael (talk) 02:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else have anything to say about this? Surely Kael and I aren't the only people keeping an eye on this page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Here, I'll start by pointing out problems with your current version. In the previous version, every sentence in the lead has a source; yours has one. You have no source for when they started protesting, their park protests, or their "special animosity towards homosexuals." And yes, I know the latter is pretty obvious, but it still needs a source. You also gutted the section that explains their views and left us with, well, nothing. I don't really think that's cataloging everything they've done - those are pretty basic things that should probably be explained. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of citations - including for when they started picketing (source one, for both 1955 and 1991). Every starting sentence doesn't need a citation when they're peppered throughout the text. And some of the refs couldn't be duplicated b/c WBC keeps changing its web page such that the original fliers are now buried in zip files. If you see a problem, go through and re-ad individual sections. As for WBC hating gays, again, source one. Kael (talk) 03:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

So... you removed lots and lots of references from the page and I have to be the one to go through and readd them? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Citations are useless if they lead to dead links. There's no reason to keep them. Kael (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

User:HelloAnnyong asked me to take a look here, I guess because I edited it at some point. I think HelloAnnyong has a pretty good argument; the original article has a small but representative sampling of the vast number of pickets, protests, and such that WBC has been involved in. Kael has some good changes too -- for example, putting "beliefs and structure" at the start of the article makes a lot of sense (otherwise, it would just get buried in all the weird stuff.) The old lead is much better, though. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't see very much in the old article about WBC's beliefs. There's a brief blurb at the top. The rest of the article talks about protests, counter protests, and media appearances. There's a lot of information, but it's not very accessible in terms of layout. The lawsuit by Albert Snyder, for example, is discussed several different times, leading to redundancy and overlap.Kael (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I've had a brief look at Kael's revisions, and would echo Jpgordon's comment that Kael's idea to describe the church's beliefs and structure before a describing their protests makes sense. But Kael's most recent revision ([1]) has significant problems, including too few citations, poor paragraph structure, WP:MOS issues and domination of the section titled "protest activities" by material that would be appropriately included under "responses". So I'm restoring the last version by Smackbot, before Kael's edits. Kael – you clearly have some valuable ideas on how this article can be improved, but please discuss at the talk page before making such drastic changes to an article about a controversial topic on which many editors have devoted a lot of time. You might want to experiment with major restructurings in a personal sandbox – for example, at User:Kael/Westboro Baptist Church – so you can get feedback from other editors. Regarding problems with the ever-changing WBC website, you may find Template:Internet Archive useful. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 16:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(By the way, you want "theological determinism" not "theological determinism".)

Well, now there are more citations, but most of them are to articles and fliers that either don't exist anymore or are saved on the WBC website in zip files as opposed to at individual locations. I would suggest, if people want such a detailed list of WBC protests and media activities, that this one article be split into several. The way it sits now, there's so much extra material there that WBC's core beliefs are buried under a mountain of information. The article's length has been discussed above on this talk page, as have the dead links. Citation should lead to useful information; it's not enough that there be a dead link at the bottom merely so an article doesn't look weak in this area. Kael (talk) 00:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The original targets of the now-dead links should still be available in the Internet Archive, accessible through the wayback machine – Template:Internet Archive is intended for linking to these archives. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 02:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Ooh! Just found Wikipedia:Using the Wayback Machine. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 02:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Membership and Funding

I'm new to this, so If I am breaking protocol I apologize. I would, however, be interested in seeing a section on the statistics of the Church itself....how many members, and where they get the funding to travel all over the nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.56.29 (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Violence directed against WBC

Resolved

 – Looks good to me. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 07:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

During the filming of Louis Theroux's The Most Hated Family in America, someone drove past in a car with a covered up number plate and threw a drink at the group. Perhaps this should be added to the section "Violence against the WBC." Grieferhate (talk) 08:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Can you cite a reliable source? Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, no. I doubt that there is going to be a detailed plot synopis of the entire documentary - not even on Wikipedia. You need only to watch the documentary. Grieferhate (talk) 22:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No reliable source, no inclusion. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hang on, the documentary itself is presumably a reliable source. If the incident is covered in the documentary I see no reason it shouldn't be included. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 06:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

Resolved

 – Thanks Geo8rge. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 07:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

From User:4.155.251.144:

For Westboro Baptist Church, you may want to edit the information "In the autumn of 2007 the father of a Marine whose funeral was picketed by the WBC was awarded $5 million in damages.[12][13] " with the contents of this article http://wjz.com/local/westboro.2.1207062.html

~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 13:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Implication?

"Police had difficulty determining whether the demonstration met the guidelines of protected free speech. It was said at least one of the picket signs read, "Hinckley is in hell."[29]" This seems to imply that the sign would not have been protected free speech. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Phelps' photo documentary project 2008

In 2008 British photojournalist Garry Cook visited the Phelps family at their home in Topeka. A selection of his yet to be published work can be seen here[2] and here[3]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.206.245 (talk) 22:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

church or cult?

... or fake-church? (Yeah, that sounds better.) 207.238.52.162 (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

i've been looking at the definitions of the words "church" and "cult" and it seems to me that the latter describes this tiny, marginalised group far better - changing this would immediately reduce the bias of the article - someone gimme the thumbs up and i'll do it today - what say you? -- Kylemew (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 11:21, July 23, 2009.

I've answered this question on my talk page for this user, but I'll answer it here too. First, we need to go to the sources on this, of which we have none. No reliable sources to show that they're a cult means we can't add it. Changing church -> cult isn't a trivial matter. And making that change would not "reduce the bias of the article", it would only make it worse. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed: dropping the word "church" from their description would be unacceptably POV. But theological criticism from Christian sources is rather thinly covered here so far. Rick Ross is quoted as calling them a cult in Westboro_Baptist_Church#Opposition_to_Westboro.27s_theology. That section could be expanded by moving criticism by Christian denominations from other parts of the article into that section, e.g. the Primitive Baptists' citation in the intro, the six denominations cited in Westboro_Baptist_Church#Banned_from_entering_the_UK supporting the UK gov't ban on the Phelpses, as well as by adding new material from WP:RS elsewhere. Per Ardua (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

how is it unacceptably pov? look at the definitions of these words - i'm not suggesting that we call them the westboro baptist cult - i'm saying that they are a cult as much as they are a church - never mind what christians think, what does the dictionary say? are we afraid of them? they are using this page to peddle their ideas and describing them as "a religious cult" would not only stop them but is more semantically correct - (which i don't think that last sentence was) we are not here to protect anyone's beliefs but to share knowledge - come on, tell me why "cult" is more pov than "church" because i don't get it - and btw i am an atheist and couldn't give a flying tortoise for peoples' souls but i do care that this organ is being undermined by the wbc - Kylemew (talk —Preceding undated comment added 14:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC).

One answer is that "cult" is not a neutral term - it's got a stigma, it brings up certain feelings in people. And like I said on my talk page, using a dictionary here is insufficient. Reading off a dictionary definition and saying "Westboro is this" is WP:OR. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

i see what you're getting at and its a solid point - but surely all most words carry connotations of some kind - my argument remains that we are simply bound to use the most accurate descriptive language we can - Kylemew (talk

Which definition of the word "cult" are you using? From which dictionary? There are different senses of the word in different contexts. For example, "cult of Mary" is an expression used sometimes within the Catholic Church, but "cult" here appears to be used in a pejorative sense, which makes it POV. For atheists, "church" and "cult" may be interchangeable, but for rational believers of many faiths they are not, which also makes it POV. Per Ardua (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

surely we should be taking neither side and i think we run a risk of being unnecessarily pedantic - like you say, for non-believers it makes no odds and for believers i would have thought that the word "church" was being used pejoratively in this case as most believers (or their spokespeople at least) want no association with this group - still not sure and none of this addresses the issue of what wbc supporters have done to the page - ntl i do concede your point but would like to hear what others think as it seems difficult to remain neutral here and i'm just saying that "church" is as pov as "cult" - stay cool now ~k)- Kylemew (talk)

opps forgot to answer your initial q - just online dictionaries - our sister and a common sense understanding of the words - we understandably (and rightly) make a bigger deal of these things than the people who just read the articles - Kylemew (talk —Preceding undated comment added 14:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC).

No evidence has been submitted so far to support the rather novel suggestion that using the word "church" to describe a group called "Westboro Baptist Church" is either POV or pejorative. Per Ardua (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

not entirely sure i've succeeded in explaining why i made the suggestion - but no worries - i could call myself a "coffee table" if i wanted - it wouldn't make me into a coffee table though - words are made pejorative by use, not definition - have it your way - nice to have met you :) - Kylemew (talk)

They are a fundamentalist Christian church, and they back up what they believe with Biblical scripture. They most certainly have a tax exemption as a registered church, so if the government classifies them that way, I don't see what the problem is with refering to them as a church. I think the discomfort people have with Westboro is a reaction to seeing a literal interpretation of the Bible. But that discomfort does not stop THIS particular group from being a church. I'm not a fan of theirs, but that doesn't mean they aren't a Christian church. Codenamemary (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Rutgers University Anti-Protest 2009

{{editsemiprotected}} In early October, 2009, The Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) announced it would be visiting, amongst other New Jersey areas, the Rutgers University Hillel House. Rather than ignore their protests, Rutgers Hillel decided to lead an anti-protest. "It is not just Rutgers Hillel, but Rutgers University that has been targeted. In the face of this kind of assault, we will not stand idly by. We join with our brothers and sisters at Rutgers — across ethnic, religious and gender lines — to condemn the blind hatred spewed by these people."

In the days leading up to the protest, Facebook groups were formed in support of the Hillel's decision, many sending event requests asking students to show up for the anti-protest. Rutger's official newspaper, the Daily Targum, was among the first to publish any information about the protest, and ran a generally supportive article regarding Hillel's decision. Even Rutgers' rarely sober satire-periodical, The Medium, ran a surprisingly sober article -

I can’t really say that they shouldn’t be allowed to protest, being that I work for the Medium, and we live and die by the First Amendment. These people are more than welcome to protest whatever they want, and there’s no one that can stop them. What we should do; however, is show our love for the Hillel. We’re all Rutgers students here, and this is our moment to come together and show our support for our brethren. Instead of signs with hatred on them, we need to overwhelm the Hillel with signs of “God Loves Us All” and “Everybody Love Everybody” and maybe even “The Dark Knight Was The Best Movie Ever.”

Though the WBC was scheduled to arrive at 8:45 AM and leave a half hour later at 9:15 AM, They arrived at approximately 8:10. Still, so many students in support of Rutgers Hillel crowded outside the building that the six WBC members were forced to protest across the street. Next to the WBC protesters was Rutgers' 2nd Reformed Church, which hung two gay pride flags and signs that said, "Love Thy Neighbor", "God IS Love", "Let Love Be Genuine", and "Amazing Grace."File:Http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/2ndReformedRutgers.JPG Rutgers Hillel had a myriad of programs to run while the WBC was present, including performances by the Livingston Theater Company, a Capella groups Shockwave and Deep Treble, and Jewish a Capella group Kol Halayla. Rutgers Hillel also oversaw the reading of a diversity statement by members of a large number of representative of Rutgers' ethnic, religious, and sexual orientation diversity. An estimated 650-1200 students showed up in support of Rutgers Hillel, despite the pouring rain and early Wednesday morning. Many students held signs, some baring words of love - "God is Love", "RU Loving? We Are!", "God Loves Everyone" - and some baring comical, sarcastic slogans - "God Loves Weed", "God Hates Pepsi" File:Http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/GodHatesPepsi.JPG, "Aaaaaah! Aaaaga! Aaahaagaha!"

The Westboro Baptist Church left the area somewhere between 8:40 and 8:45 AM, much earlier than they had anticipated. Student remained until well past 9:00 AM, chanting "RU rah rah" and other unified slogans.

The counterprotest was regarded as a great success by the Jewish community and Christian community alike. The protest was met not with just students, but with reporters from local stations and national stations, such as CNN.

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Leujohn ^{(talk, stalk me?)} 10:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Well the article at present doesn't say anything about Rutgers University, so clearly Jamesmarion means for the above to be added directly to the article. I think it would make an excellent addition to the counter protest section. Jamesmarion, I think it's a bit long in its present form, and would overwhelm the section. Perhaps you could summarise the most important points in a single paragraph? It looks to me like most of the main points are in the paragraph beginning "Though the WBC was scheduled..." Probably the full quote from The Medium is a bit much. I'd keep 2ndReformedRutgers.JPG (right) and exclude the Pepsi pic. Myself or another editor can help you expand the references and integrate the picture properly. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the text looks like it was copypasted from an article somewhere and it using a satire paper and Facebook as references, is there any reason why we should include the text about this protest/counterprotest as opposed to any others that have happened? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Given the referencing it doesn't look like a copy-paste to me, and googling several sentences turned up nothing. The CNN-vetted iReport reference (http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-347622) looks like a reliable source, though I see there are problems with some or all of the others. According to iReport, there were 1000 students protesting, so this protest looks more notable than several of those presently included in the counter protest section. Like I said, I don't think it's worth more than one paragraph, though. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 15:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

POV?

I think some slogans from the article are somewhat POV. Dexcribing their biblical interepretation as "eisigesis" surely comes under this. There are other issues as well, but I can't remeber remember what they were. DanCrowter 20:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

                      You also can't spell remember properly

This article still has some major POV issues. For instance, the photo description stating ___ has been arrested for assault seems unhelpful to understanding that image. It may be ok for the text of the article though. Banjeboi 14:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Update, I trimmed off the photo caption and made some other fixes. More eyes looking to neutralize content is appreciated. Banjeboi 12:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm no fan of these people, but isn't it a bit unfair to have the top image in the article be of something other than the subject of the article? JorgeMacD (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not certain if the article merits so much attention. There is a criticism section in this article that might not be necessary according to current Wikipedia rules. That must be difficult though, since the existence of this organization is based in criticism. It's locked anyway, I suppose we will just let the masters of Wikipedia control it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.213.250.180 (talk) 07:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Masters of Wikipedia? This article is semi-protected because it was getting vandalised extensively by unregistered users. Anyone is welcome to propose changes on this talk page. Template:Editsemiprotected is designed for that purpose; those requests normally get pretty fast responses. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 01:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Size of this "church"?

Can anyone source some statistics re the size of this "church"? From what I can glean, they are made up mostly of one extended family, and not much more. (Small but noisy, and big media darlings). Can anyone provide more info for the article? 60.242.34.19 (talk) 10:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a piece from the BBC in 2007 when it was 71 people. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Counter protests and sourcing

I removed NotTires' edit on the grounds that the two sources provided - http://www.gayindynow.com/news/?id=news&item=136 and http://www.phelps-a-thon.com/Home.html - fail the criteria for reliable sources.

The first is a self-published blog by an seemingly unreliable organization. The text that shows up for the first - "assert (e.g. [100]) that " - is inappropriate and looks unencyclopedic. And where in that reference does it say that the targets "frequently assert... that counter protests provide publicity and encouragement to the church, and fosters continued protesting"? I'm not seeing it.

The second link is a primary source, and isn't even used as a reference - it's just given as a straight link, which to me is a solicitation for the site. This article isn't supposed to serve as a linkfarm or anything like that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I replaced the materials, rewording to make the entries more encyclopedic. I believe editors should help other folks improve their edits, not just rip out what we don't like and not provide any useful constructive criticism. Unless, of course, it appears to be clear-cut vandalism. The edit we're discussing doesn't seem to fall into the vandalism category. I agree with your criticism of the second reference, but you give no rationale for your criticism of the first. What does "seemingly unreliable organization" mean? By whose standard? Until consensus is reached, I'd ask that you leave it as is. Cheers! --averagejoe (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but per WP:BURDEN, "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". When you add text to an article, it needs to conform to Wikipedia standards. Now, as to your concerns. The first site, www.gayindynow.com, says that it's the voice of the "Indy Rainbow Chamber of Commerce". Who are they and why should anything on their site be used as a reference? Further, you didn't answer my question of where in the article it says that "targets of the church's protests assert that counter protests provide publicity and encouragement to the church, and serve to foster continued protesting." Moreover, your use of "Some targets" and "Some groups" is a sign of weasel words, which are unacceptable around here.

If you'd like we can take this to the reliable source noticeboard and see what the people there think of the text and the source. I'm not going to revert the text again, but hopefully some other editors who watch this page will chime in. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I've taken the issue to RSN anyway. The thread is here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The one response on RSN says that the source can't be used since it violates WP:SPS. If there are no further objections, I'm going to remove the text. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. Even after JRStutler/averagejoe's tweaks, the source did not support the claims made. The disputed text claimed some targets of the church's protests opposed counter-protests and that some groups used the protests as a fundraiser, but the source only described a single example. Some implies more than one, and the extrapolation from one to some was not justified. Anyway, the article states elsewhere that some groups oppose counter-protests; see this edit. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Supreme court will hear appeal in Snyder v. Phelps (Westboro Baptist Church case)

The United States Supreme Court today (Monday, March 8, 2010) granted certiorari in the appeal of Snyder v. Phelps, the lawsuit involving the Westboro Baptist Church.[4][5] This is a major development and warrants inclusion in the article; however, it's locked at present so only a Wikipedia member can do that. 173.49.135.190 (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Another contributor added the info, though a brief explanation of what this means would be great. You're welcome to make suggestions here; using {{editsemiprotected}} normally gets a fast response. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

---

3. Responses Laws limiting funeral protests In the last paragraph, it says the law proposed and subsequently passed by President George W. Bush "gardnered overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress..." -- I believe that should be written to read "garnered" and not "gardnered." The bill is not planting shrubs or flowers. O_o

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.128.145 (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed Haha, thanks. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Guilt by association? =

Why does the "See also" section have links to hyper-Calvinism and limited atonement? Is there any evidence that WBC holds those beliefs? If they do, why link to them and not to other reasonably mainstream religious beliefs such as virgin birth or baptism by immersion? Is there any evidence that any other believers in hyper-Calvinism and limited atonement agree with WBC in any of the areas that make WBC distintive from other churches? Those two links should be removed unless someone is able to document a connection with WBC. 75.84.237.246 (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely! Well spotted. I've removed them, along with Scott Lively, who has no connection to WBC. StAnselm (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Funding

Can someone PLEASE put where this church gets its funding? They spend a quarter a million a year protesting...where the hell do they get the money? I can't find that anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.153.76 (talk) 05:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

How can we possibly add it to the article if we have no verifiable information to add? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this would be possible if private citizens or privately held companies donated the money. - Gwopy 05:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwopy (talk • contribs)

It would really help to know if they are an accredited 501(c)(3) organization. That would help us figure out where they get the money.Bill Heller (talk) 08:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

baptist mean christian ok so get it right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.255.80 (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Curious, isn't it? A massively long Wikipedia entry about a totally marginal, tiny little grouplet who almost revel in the absurd. The entry has a "locked" status. Who accorded it that? Why? And, among the reams of carefully gathered info about this insignificant family group, NO information about who finances it? How bizarre. I think Wikipedia is engaged in something of a conspiracy to elevate the WBC to a status it does not deserve - and details of who finances it may lead to some surprising revelations. 86.184.160.147 (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Article quality tends to correspond to the popularity of the article. This one gets well over 1,000 page views per day ([6]) – roughly the same as Baptists – so it naturally attracts many contributors. It's been semi-protected by eight different administrators over time due to excessive vandalism from unregistered users, as you can see from its protection log; anyone is welcome to suggest changes at this talk page. And as HellyAnnyong alluded to above, there's no information on WBC funding because so far, no-one's found a reliable source we can cite to say where it comes from. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

They are funded by all the member donations of ALL/TOTAL worth! They must give all they own, cars,houses, income, etc. to the church. The church then alots an allowance for each person/family and directs the spending of same. i.e.; what cloths to wear, cars to drive, houses to live in (most of which are owned by the church which is the land loard of those members who rent them back.) The church (FRED) ownes several of the houses within a 3 block area surrounding his home/church which is a large palacial residence (unlike the other small cracker boxes he rents out) with a tall solid fence (granted special permit by the City of Topeka, KS.) which is monitored by very high tech devices (visiual and audio) as well as guard dogs and ARMED persons (mostly family/church members). I have first hand knowledge of these facts having been in a close working relationship with two of Fred's daughters. One worked as the legal counsil for the SHERIFF of SHAWNEE COUNTY for about 2 years in the 1980's. The other was taking LAW classes at WASHBURN UNIV., TOPEKA,KS. and worked as an inturn in that same office. Both were very freindly and seemed to be kind and gentle types while working there, HOWEVER, they would both turn into foul mouthed screeming whitches when on the picket line !! These things are not well known by the public due to lack of media tout. People need to know that this is a CULT if ever there was one!! I hope this answers your questions ? (72.26.24.116 (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC))

Fix Apostrophe

Simple edit: Fix the apostrophe on "Fox New's Bill O'Reilly" to "Fox News' Bill O'Reilly" in the section that describes O'Reilly offering to pay Snyder's legal fees. Equus911 (talk) 04:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done Nice catch. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This group has category links for anti-catholism, antisemitism and anti- Islamism, but nothing for antiLGBT?

Does this make sense to ANYONE? This group is most famous for it's "God Hates Fags" slogan and because discrimination against gays is considered POV (therefore acceptable) in Wikipedia there is no Anti-LGBT category?--DCX (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly not because discrimination against gays is acceptable. Prior to February this year, this article was in Category:Homophobia. But that category was then purged of all articles about homophobic individuals and groups, retaining only articles directly relevant to homophobia itself. The reasons are described at Category talk:Homophobia and in the last CfD discussion linked from that page. I agree with you that this creates an unusual situation in this article; you might want to take this up at the category talk page. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Mistake

It is written "six members the WBC." It should say "six members of the WBC". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.219.126 (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Good catch. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Linkfarm and Ref delete

I removed a Ref From examiner.com, as it seems the author shows no notability. I am surpised its here actually as examiner.com is blacklisted. I also removed the parody section, as it looked linkfarmish and served no other purpose than promotion of those sites. Thirdly removed rick ross, though his opion of the group is apprpriate for a Crtitiicsm section the news articles on his site are clear copyvios.Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Should there be a section on their criticism of Barack Obama, see http://www.beastobama.com/? Lcw27 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:09, April 7, 2010.

My initial reaction is to oppose as, however unintentionally, I think that will just give this organization another forum for its views.- Sinneed 05:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Parody Site/Sites

The name eludes me as of now, but I do know that a very funny parody site based on this religion was created. If anyone can remember it, I think that it would be a great addition to this article, possibly as a brand new section.

Thank you for your help.

Sincerely,

Sean 0000001 (talk) 07:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I have just found the site that I was looking for.

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/

Uncyclopedia has tons of parody sites of the WBC. I'll just link them here. http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church

Sean 0000001 (talk) 08:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This would be a valuable addition to the encyclopedia why? - Sinneed 12:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Newly created/added cat is POV/OR

Adding new cat Category:LGBT rights opposition is not appropriate here for reasons stated on the cat's Talk page section entitled, "Cat violates Wiki policy?"

Further, as illustrated on Concerned Women for America, the cat may be controversial, and cats are not used for controversial material. The existence of controversy evidences the cat is inappropriate for the page. In particular, WP:CAT says:

Particular considerations for categorizing articles:

• It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. Use the {{Category unsourced}} template if you find an article in a category that is not shown by sources to be appropriate, or the {{Category relevant?}} template if the article gives no clear indication for inclusion in a category.

Obviously, it is not "clear from verifiable information in the article" if the wiki community keeps removing it.

I urge and support removal of the cat, else I urge the addition of either or both cat templates shown above from WP:CAT.

I am repeating this on all pages in which this new cat was added so communities there can discuss. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Lol you amuse me, if this was sticking a Some conservative Politicians page i might agree with you, If ever there was a group that so blatantly open about being that category than this is it. You frankly do not have to cite the sky is blueWeaponbb7 (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome! Please consider commenting on the cat's Talk page as well. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Adding to the main article

Please add this to the main article where it fits.

WBC never picketed Jerry Falwell's funeral, they only stated they were going to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.241.200 (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"On April 7th, 2010, the Westboro Baptist Church will be visiting Ohio Wesleyan University in Delaware, Ohio to picket the showing of the documentary, "Anatomy of Hate". This documentary focuses on the motives behind hatred and features the Westboro Baptist Church.

On March 29th, 2010, students from OWU heard of the picketing schedule to occur on OWU's campus. Immediately after hearing the news, word spread and several counter-protests have been planned to take place that same day.

It is expected that the entire college community will be counter-protesting the presence of the Westboro Baptist Church. Several organizations from Columbus, Ohio State University, Columbus State University, and Capital University will be joining Wesleyan students in the peaceful protest."

Thanks wikipedia.

Rlstclai (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Bobby

 Not done. This isn't the place to promote counter-protests or anything like that. Further, in general, single protest events like this are not really notable enough to be included in the article. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to include quote from the Ku Klux Klan

"The Ku Klux Klan, LLC. has not or EVER will have ANY connection with The 'Westboro Baptist Church'. We absolutely repudiate their activities."

Reference to this quote should have some relevance to Westboro's article. The quote is taken from KKK's website:
http://www.kukluxklan.bz/
Native94080 (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the best place for this would be here.
Native94080 (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The statement from KKK can be confirmed from other news sources. Only three (out of numerous) news link sources, searched via Google, are provided below.
Gazette.com, Pink News, Anorak.
Native94080 (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

okie doakie, same thing as here here Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Placement or reference of this statement remains in dispute.
Native94080 (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

its just unnesicary, no one has seriously tried to link them Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

There has to be some relevance to this statement from KKK. Why would the KKK issue such a statement? Are the KKK's activities being blamed for the activities of Westboro? Or vice versa? Such questions bring up some relevant points to consider. Or perhaps, such points are not being addressed in the Wikipedia articles, and it should be included. This article is already included in several "unknown" and "unassessed" categories listed below, so why not include this statement from KKK into the mix?
Native94080 (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Because it is not needed. The source is prejudicial: "If the KKK think's it's bad, it must really be bad." It is a non-statement, and adds nothing to the article. The KKK, for example, is not an expert organization on churches or political action groups. No.- Sinneed 23:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Methinks the KKK doth protest too much. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, uh, this is not a necessary thing to add to the article. I'm against its inclusion. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

on second thought it might be worth its inclusion just because some one took the time to create a trademark "Ku Klux Klan LLC"... i mean really..... Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

removed two Prejudices categories

I've removed the Sexual and Gender prejudices category, and the Prejudice and Discrimination category, as the inclusion of these didn't seem appropriate.

First of all, this is not an article about prejudice, it's an article about a church. Secondly, given that the word prejudice has clear negative connotations, I think it's not appropriate to add category links to every group or individual who we might think is being prejudiced. Both of these categories right now have a small number of articles in them, and are not being used as a large list of every prejudiced group or individual there is.

The word prejudice is defined as: 1. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts. 2. A preconceived preference or idea. 3. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. 4. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.

I've added the emphasis above to point out that most anyone would insist they are not being prejudiced, and therefore putting individuals or groups into a category based on that label is to not be objective about them. We wouldn't allow categories like "Irrational people" or "Unreasonable people", so a category of "prejudiced people" is no better. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Putting the WBS into the category "prejudiced" is not objective?! Really? Did you read the definition you posted? Certainly I agree that the categories of prejudice and discrimination are not widely used, but to say they aren't appropriate here is ludicrous.208.62.95.2 (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Janimal

No, it isn't ludicrous. I do understand that you don't agree with the statement. I support the removal.- Sinneed 21:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose removal. Irrational seems to be operative in this case. --averagejoe (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, all religion is often seen as irrational by its non-practitioners. I know a man who is brought to tears from time to time upon seeing a car covered in dead bugs killed by night driving. These folks state that their religious beliefs lead them to the certaintly that US national tolerance of various practices means that their god is angry with the entire nation. That seems different from "prejudice"... though I accept that to anti-religionists there is no difference between a random prejudice and word from a deity. If the cats as presently defined DO belong here, then they will certainly belong on very many other religion-related-group articles... and I would support changing the tags.- Sinneed 21:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Membership

Resolved

It is widely accepted that the majority of the membership of WBC consists of Phelp's extended family, but this article does not address the issue by either stating this or attempting to disprove it. As a major element of the group and, in particular, criticism of them it is noticeably lacking.67.169.74.129 (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Well if it doesn't state it, it of course would not attempt to disprove it either. Being widely accepted is great, but if you get an actual source you can add it to the article! I agree though, seems rather obvious membership is mostly extended family, and that is noteworthy. Beach drifter (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Our fellow edizen User:Pd THOR provided a link CNN: 'Most-hated,' anti-gay preacher once fought for civil rights in Talk:Fred_Phelps#sources, that explains exactly

Most of the members of Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church are members of his large family.

under the heading named How Phelps' message reached the U.S. Supreme Court. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 20:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added the info to the lead, which is where the most general information about the church is presented at the moment. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Request: In-depth history of WBC

I've noticed that there isn't an in-depth history of WBC. The only information is in the introduction, talking about the start of the church. Avaviel (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

48 States Join Westboro Suit

If this article is not already referenced in the wiki-article, this news should be included:
http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/06/02/48-states-join-westboro-suit/
Native94080 (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. May need a small verbiage tweak. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

• Pending changes appears to be disrupting the stability of the article, this article imo requires long term semi protection. Off2riorob (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Spoof websites - notable?

Is there an appropriate place in this article for some of the websites that have been created spoofing the websites owned by Westboro Baptist Church? I'm thinking things like godlovesfags.com and godhatesfigs.(net? com?). godlovesfags.com is referenced at http://www.salon.com/technology/log/1999/08/20/hack/print.html and http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9908/23/hack.folo/index.html. Naraht (talk) 11:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Warning: I have an enormous conflict-of-interest on this issue, I'm the coauthor of God Hates Shrimp. I know there used to be a set of references to such parodies on the bottom of either the WBC or the Fred Phelps WP page, I don't know which and/or when it was added or later removed, but I recall seeing them. I think such parodies are worth including to the extent that they're reflected in realiable, secondary coverage. By way of entirely biased examples, with respect to God Hates Shrimp there's an old newspaper interview here [7], there's been a half-dozen radio appearences (e.g., interview on the Stephanie Miller show) documented here: http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/press.php, reflections of the parody being used in counterprotests here: http://normantranscript.com/local/x20299117/Protesters-counter-protesters-square-off-near-Hillel, serious articles about the idea behind the parody at places like U.S. Catholic (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/God+hates+shrimp.-a0116141175), even potential allusions to the argument behind the parody by President Obama (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/24/evangelical.vote/index.html, search on "shellfish") and so on.

My point of listing these is not to suggest you should write an article about my parody (you should, of course *grin*), but simply to suggest that in my view the key element of what would make a parody (wwhether you're thinking of it as "just the web site" or the wider contexts of the WBC parodies in society) like this relevant is the same thing that makes an article notable or not ... multiple instances of coverage from reliable, secondary sources. --j⚛e decker^talk 14:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least you admit your COI. :) Thanx for the references. I'm pretty sure it was on here. http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=43658867960&v=info has a copy of an old version (from after August 2008) of Westboro Baptist Church and that has information on a number of sites (which someone put a template indicating Miscellaneous information should not be included). Check this article at the beginning of September 2008. Perhaps a separate article listing spoofs of WBC/FPh?Naraht (talk) 23:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense, there is a general policy discourgement of trivia. If you find that the parodies rise to, well, some notability (by whatever critieria), they'd make sense, but trivia is sort of by definition non-notable.  ;) --j⚛e decker^talk 01:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga takes on Westboro Baptist

This was added http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/17/lady-gaga-takes-on-westboro-baptist Lady Gaga takes on Westboro Baptist. could be noteworthy enough for a mention, Off2riorob (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from D3esi, 23 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} On 22 July 2010 in San Diego California, members of the WBC protested Comic Con International, a convention for pop-culture enthusiasts. The cause for protest was to condemn attendees for idol worship. A large constituent of anti-protesters was also present outnumbering the WBC protesters. D3esi (talk) 02:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC) http://video.aol.com/aolvideo/Asylum/westboro-baptist-protests-comic-con/207674901001

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.  Davtra  ^(talk) 05:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Tmartinson, 25 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} In 2006, it picketed the funeral of Albert Snyder's son, Matthew Snyder, a marine, who was killed in Iraq, with banners saying "God hates fags" and "Thanks God for dead soldiers". His funeral was held in Maryland.[28] Westboro Baptist Church is currently in a legal fight with the father Albert Snyder over the picketing.

Please Change ", a marine," to "a, Marine,"

Tmartinson (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: While the Marine Corps ordinarily capitalizes the word "Marine" when referring to an individual or a group, Wikipedia does not; most other works use the same style guideline. The words "soldier", "sailor" and "airman" are similarly not capitalized. Military ranks are capitalized when used as titles, but "marine" is not a rank. Horologium (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Zarathustra2k1, 3 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} An interesting point missing from the article is that Phelps also played the evil preacher in the movie 'Poltergeist 2'.

Well, if it ain't him then, boy do they look alike! Twin brother, maybe? Separated at birth? :P

zarathustra (talk) 22:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: comedy request. Off2riorob (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Adam Lambert's response to WBC

At Adam Lambert's Glam Nation concert in Springfield, Mo., he kissed his (male) bassist during a song and said "Suck on that, Westboro!" afterward. You can watch it here, about 20 seconds into the video. Should this or could this be added to the page? It seems significant to me, as he is a public figure commonly targeted by the group. Glambert4688 (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Mmmm not really, Concert banter is not the best for a encyclopedia Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing about the Amish School Massacre?

Maybe I missed it, but shouldn't there be something about their plans to protest the victims of the 2006 West Nickel Mines Amish School massacre? ----DanTD (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Inadequate Introduction

The lead really doesn't describe why WBC is at all noteworthy, or why there's a [huge] Wikipedia page on it. The sole reason they've reached the level of fame they have is their protesting and "Anti-Fag" stuff, which isn't mentioned at all in the lead. And the second paragraph, about the church's religious views (Primitive Baptist, Calvinist, etc.) really doesn't seem to me to be that important to the article. After all, the church's specific religious doctrine and philosophy isn't why everyone knows about them; it's because of their incendiary and bombastic protests and publicity. Not to compare them to a cult (I don't know if you could label them this), but the article on Peoples Temple (Jonestown), for example, doesn't describe their specific beliefs in the lead. It says, "It is best known for causing the deaths of 918 people..." That's why they're as well-known as they are, and that's why they're noteworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.14.204 (talk • contribs) 18:22, May 8, 2009

I also think that it is inaccurate to describe them as "Independent Baptist" because none of the groups listed under that description seems to include them. When you capitalize "Independent" in Independent Baptist, you signal that there is a particular group with that name. If they describe themselves as independent Baptist, stating that would be factual. Avocats (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of a list of being entities that have been target of Westborro Protests

This list might help us with all the edit request asking for us to mention their Targeting of "X" does anyone have any thoughts?Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think one could exhaust oneself listing all of their targets. I worry that doing so in such detail affords them far more attention than they warrant.

Avocats (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well if we just say US army instead of each soldier they have protested i see it being manageable, But I tire of all the edit request to include X and Lady Gaga fans flocking to include her its only a matter of time until we have an army of meatpuppets flock here to do something about their protesting celebrity X. In fact that may have happened already I dont know it seems the middle ground approach.

Church is Not in Westboro

The WBC is not actually in the Westboro section of Topeka, Kansas. It is about 2 blocks North of the Northern edge of the neighborhood. A search for Westboro in Wikipedia turns up the statement that the WBC is "based in Westboro." It would be accurate to state that it is "based in Southwest Topeka, KS."

GEM 13:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the big deal is? The lead of this article says "Located in Topeka, Kansas, United States" and I can't find anywhere else in the aritcle that says they're based in the Westboro section. Or am I missing something? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This has been taken care of on the disambiguating page. GEM 14:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)