Talk:Westboro Baptist Church/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Sweden

The legal actions taken by the Swedish royal family is according to the article in SvD not for his comments about Sweden in general, but for his comments about the royal family per se, and then especially his comments about princess Madeleine claiming she being indecent.

• Out of curiosity - does anyone know what these creatures (I won't have them in the same category as us humans) at WBC make of the United Nations? I can imagine they'll hate it, as they seem to hate everything in the universe, but it would be interesting to know...

• I completely agree with the guy above me, but as this is an encyclopedia, why do we have to start an article about a schurch off with "hate group"?

• Perhaps because these are a group of people who rejoyce when thousands of children die in terrible tragedies and come to funerals to yell vial things at the loved ones of the people that fought for their rights. What the hell should we start it off with? This is a local church that has very good after-school programs?Dan 14:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hatred of Islam and muslims, however despicable, is not racism, and neither is hatred of Catholics or Catholicism. In general the racism section is pretty weak. There is plenty bad to be said about Phelps without bringing the allegation that he uses the word "nigger." --mikedelsol

Nice work. Much better. I removed the NPOV tag.--Cberlet 02:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

This article could be accused of not quite attaining NPOV, but it is clear that the writers have made an attempt to see this ridiculous crusade from both sides that is nothing short of heroic. -- Patrick Beverley, 15 August 2005

Former Members of Westboro Baptist Church

The article has been updated with the following:

"George Stutzman, Theresa Davis, Chris Davis, Karl Hockenbarger, Bill Hockenbarger and his wife, James Hockenbarger and Joshua Phelps-Roper are no longer members of the Westboro Baptist Church."

Where did this information come from? The Hockenbargers have been members of the church for a long time. I believe Chris Davis is married to Rebekah Phelps-Davis, one of Fred Phelps' children. His leaving the church would mean that he and Rebekah are no longer together. Joshua is one of the children of church spokesperson Shirley Phelps-Roper. His leaving would probably mean that he no longer has a relationship with his parents. (As Dorothea Bird once said: "If you're in, you're in. If you're out, you're out.)

JustinInAtlanta

Hate group

Any chance of this article having a further early emphasis on it being a recognised hate group?

Lies

The westboro baptist CULT disgrace me. They hate catholics because they aparantly abuse children and are homosexuals. This is absolute lies and heavily offensive. The fact that they make up so much lies and how there actions are contradicted within the bible should be given more attention. Anyone agree?

Appearance

I remember an appearance by a woman and her children on the Howard Stern show... they were members of the Westboro Church, and in the few minutes I watched one thing that the woman said struck me as an interesting point: "I don't hate fags, God hates fags," or something to that effect. And yes, Fred Phelps mentioned this subject in an April 2003 interview with BlackTable.com: (Here's the URL:[1] - JesseW 08:56, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC))

Article structure

I started some sections to give the article more structure, and made other indicated changes. -Willmcw 08:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comment

On a similar note, should we change references to this group from "church" to "organization?" I understand the name is Westboro Baptist Church, however for accuracy sake they are not really a "church." --LachlanMullen

This church praises dead Swedes

A friend gave me this. Copy and paste this link in to your webbrowser otherwise it won't work http://data.4channel.org/p/src/1104484357896.gif I don't know of its validity. If somebody want to add this to the article, go ahead. If you can't download the image: It's basically a flier by the church that praises the presumed 2000 deaths of Swedes in the recent asian tsunami. As a Swedish citizen I find it highly offensive that goes beyond words, so it would be impossible for me to write an unbiased addition to the article regarding this. Thanks, Mastgrr 11:29, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Criticism" section should be expanded further

I added a bit to it and think more criticism from both religious and secular public figures should continue to be added.

Parodies

If parodies are encyclopedic and appropriate for an article, should this one include the Landover Baptist satirical web site. --WCFrancis 19:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Landover Baptist is a parody of more mainstream fundamentalist churches. WBC might actually make a good parody of Landover. Guanaco 23:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Baptist

Er...so are they "Baptists"? The Calvinism tie-in doesn't sound right. I'm just wondering if we should clarify what formal relations this church may or may not have to any other religious groups; (ie: do these people have their own unique religion, or are they considered a radical offshoot of something else?) func(talk) 20:53, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

This needs to be explored more carefully. I do think they have adapted a doctrinaire version of Calvinisim, but it is unclear in the current text how that works. As for Christian Identity, someone needs to show Phelps has preasched or written that his flock is descended from one of the lost tribes of Israel and thus are the real "Jews" to actually be called Identity. I't not good enough to say some members used to be Identity, or that since both Identity and Phelps are hate groups, they are the same thing. Too weak. --Cberlet 14:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"They adhere largely to the principles of Christian Identity, to which several congregants also belong." SOurce this or it stays out. It is a very serious charge. See the paragraph above. There must be some documentation of the claim to be the "real" Jews of the covenant through ancestry. That's what Christian Identity is all about. See Christian Identity and British Israelism.--Cberlet 21:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Christian Identity charges are covered in the book on Phelps, "Addicted to Hate." Tolerance.org also lists Westboro as a Christian Identity church.70.243.43.69 06:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am a critic of Phelps, and he may well promote Christian Identity, but it needs to be cited to some proof that they promote the central tenet of Identity, which is that White Christians are descended from one of the lost tribes of Israel and thus are the real "Jews." Watchdog groups can make claims that turn out to be slightly off target. And I work at one, so I am just being cautious here. --Cberlet 14:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just checked Tolerance.org (SPLC) and they do not list Phelps' church in their list of Christian Identity groups.--Cberlet 14:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Guilt by association is not up to Wiki standards. Please talk before simply re-inserting a claim that is not backed by the SPLC page previously cited.--Cberlet 16:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have studied Westboro; researched them, read up on them. I have even met a few of them. The nature of the group is thus: What Fred Phelps says, they all say; what Fred Phelps believe, they all believe. If Fred Phelps says that blacks are animals and that Westboro-ites are the chosen people rather than Jews, they ALL believe that blacks are animals and that Westboro-ites are the chosen people rather than Jews.70.243.43.69 16:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have also studied Westboro and have written extensively about Christian Identity. There is a reason that the SPLC does not come out and list the church as Christian Identity, and that is because the evidence is one tiny step behind that line. I suspect what you say may well be true, but it is wrong to state it outright. I have tried to write a sentence that is as strong as I think the evidence allows. --Cberlet 17:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry. I admit my mistake; Tolerance.org lists it as a hate group; the link I clicked from another page said that I was being re-directed to Tolerance's listing of Christian Identity groups. Upon second inspection, the link only leads to generic hate groups, not just CI.

Not to worry. What we ended up with was a strong sentence about Identity up at the top of the article, and in a wording that can be documented. So it was a good outcome. And I suspect at some point it may become clear that what we both suspect anout Phelps is true. --Cberlet 03:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have to question whether Tolerance.org is really a Reliable Source on who is or is not a hate group, let alone a Christian Identity group. Though it's a decent site, none of the main contributors have any credentials in theology or law or any relevant field. It doesn't really amount to more than a group blog.

I expect some governments officially designate groups as hate groups (Canada, perhaps?). If so, perhaps we could reference WBC's inclusion on some such official list.--CJGB (Chris) 23:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Current Members of the Westboro Baptist Church

User:83.216.148.11 is adding a large list of Current Members of the Westboro Baptist Church. Is there really any need for such an extense list? Would you please explain why? At least, certainly there is no need for all those duplicated and red links.--Nabla 2005-06-30 17:12:47 (UTC)

Cause the various members of the church tend to crop up in media reports on their activities all the time, and it would be nice to know about their relationships within the group. It also goes to show that all members can basically be traced back to three roots - Phelps, Hockenbarger and Stutzman. I spent a good amount of time researching this, and you're welcome to "clean it up" yourself - always easier to criticize than to do the actual work, isn't it? If you want to remove it altogether - ok, see if I care. 83.216.148.11 30 June 2005 17:18 (UTC)

In fact, why don't I save you the effort, I'll delete the list of members of the congregation. Thank you for the sterling service you've done to wikipedia, Nabla. 83.216.148.11 30 June 2005 17:32 (UTC)

If I wanted it deleted I would have done so. I simply suggested that you provided an explanation on why it is important and gave it a better formatting, mostly leaving red links only on those who merit its own article. I don't know anything about this subject so you would choose much better than I.

I'll use the explanation you gave here on the top of the list. And I'll format the list and remove *every* red link. Please put them back on where you believe they are important enough to have their own article.--Nabla 2005-06-30 19:28:08 (UTC)

Done, please disambiguate, or remove, the SRS link.--Nabla 2005-06-30 20:02:37 (UTC)

Does anyone know if the Westboro Baptist Church was actually expelled from the Southern Baptist Convention in 1991 over the WBC's extremist interpretations of Scripture? I'm trying to track down whether the leaders of the SBC at the time actually denounced Westboro as a cult.User: SkeeterVT 2006-05-26 02:02 (EDT)

I am distubed that the Current Members of Westboro Baptist Church page was removed. I found this page useful. Youtube recently featured a video made in Greensboro while members were picketing the SBC. It was an interview by a local pastor. Shirley identified a boy standing on the American flag as "her tenth child." I tried to go to this page to find the identity of the child and his age, and the page was gone. Another good use of this page is that WBC publishes summaries of the pickets they do that include the names of the people present at the picket. If someone doesn't recognize one of the names, they could go to this page and find out who the person is. Please consider re-adding the page. JustinInAtlanta

NPOV

I have added an NPOV tag to this article. There is scarcely a sympathetic viewpoint in the article, and many of the quotations are unsourced, with perhaps a barely implied reference to the congregation's website. Surely some group must have published something agreeing with Phelps's views. Moreover, much of the writing itself is not balanced. For example, it is hardly NPOV to introduce the Christian Identity movement with only the descriptors "anti-Semitic" and "racist" without first giving at least a phrase to describe what this movement is and does. NatusRoma 02:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

To reiterate and specify:

• Arrests that occurred four years prior to the formation of the church are not germane to this article.
• Unqualified descriptions of church members' actions as "hypocrisy" is in no way neutral.
• This article describes the Christian Identity movement as something cohesive. While I am unfamiliar with the movement, the Wikipedia article describes it as quite disorganized in nature.
• This article is devoid of any outside views sympathetic to the church. Such views, as long as they are not extreme minority views, form the cornerstone of a neutral point of view.
• Perhaps most importantly for such a controversial subject, large parts of the article are unsourced. Consider:

• This article contains 10 sections with level 2 headings, seven of which contain no level 3 subsections, and three of which contain a total of 19 level 3 subsections.
• Of the seven, two are concerned with references. Of the other five, three are entirely unsourced, including "The Compound", "Responses", and "Criticism".

Of the 19 level 3 headings, 10 are entirely unsourced, including "Theology", "Doomsday Vision", "Criminal Record", "Violence Against Westboro", "September 11 and the Shuttle Columbia", "London Terrorist Attacks", "Child Molestation Stance", "Anti-Asian racism", "Anti-Catholicism", and "Anti-Obesity Stance".

These sections state that church members have been convicted of crimes, and include statements that could be construed as libel or slander against their targets. I won't even mention the numerous objectionable deeds that Phelps and other church members have committed. Simply put, this material is unbelievable. In order to show people the true horror of Phelps's views, those views must be accurately described and clearly sourced. Anything less will simply aid Phelps's cause. NatusRoma 06:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Nearly everything you say is "unsourced" can be found, as the article states, in the book "Addicted to Hate" (Criminal Record) or on Westboro's own homepage ("Theology", "Doomsday Vision," "Violence against Westboro, September 11 and the Shuttle Columbia," "London Terrorist Attacks," "Child Molestation Stance," "Anti-Asian racism," "Anti-Catholocism," "Anti-Obesity Stance"). Instead of saying these things aren't "Neutral" and labelling the article as being biased, why not take the time to make corrections?

Thank you for including those links. I admit that I have been quite reluctant to delve at all deeply into Phelps's website. I think that we have already made this article more NPOV. However, this article still includes no outside opinions sympathetic to Phelps and the WBC. Surely there must be some credible supporter out there. As vehemently as we disagree with Phelps's views, intellectual honesty demands that we acknowledge that there are those who agree with them. For more on why this is important, please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, especially the sections entitled "Fairness and sympathetic tone" and "Morally offensive views".

Please do not consider my criticisms of this article a personal criticism of you. I have raised these questions because I honestly want this to become a better article. We can work together to make it so. NatusRoma 05:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The problem here is not the factual content, which is very accurate, but the tone of the article and the frequent POV wording. Actually, very few people--even in the Christian Right--agree with Phelps. If we all take a paragraph and try to make the wording less judgemental, it will go a long way toward fixing the problem. --Cberlet 12:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Please, no revert wars. Pick a paragraph and we can work on it together. One paragraph at a time. --Cberlet 12:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's not let us confuse NPOV as being required to have sympathetic viewpoints inlcuded if none can be found. If we can great, realizing that alot of the material one might have to go through to find a "creditble" sympathetic voice even if it exists would require going through alot of potentially upsetting material. I do agree about your points about revising the tone of the way the facts to maintain neutrality. But let the facts speak for themselves. Graniterock 19:00, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

That's a much better way to put it. I agree. --Cberlet 21:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I went through and changed a few minor things. But over all it seems to me that the article is fairly neutral. I'll try to deal with the points in order:

• I think the "alleged cult" comment is ok. Westboro is listed as a cult in many directories on the internet.

• Many websites link phelps with Christian ID movement. But many more indicate it's the same type of ideology but phelps sepcifically is much more fundamentalist and focused on homosexual issues so is likely seperate. I revised the article to comment there were similarities between Chrsitian ID mov. but not direct connection.

• I removed the hypicrisy comment, but left in the facts about the incident. People will draw their own conclusions.

• The article at the end talks about a video that is sympathetic to phelps. I think that is enough. If you someone else can find something cool. But being devoid of more sympathetic comments I do not think makes this article non-neutral.

• there are lots of things not sourced, but alot is sourced. The unsourced things seem to be legit. I will add a link to the end of the article from Topeka newspaper which cites many of phelps legal issues. I don't have time to cite every single little thing, but I have no reason to disbelieve it. Perhaps over time we can work to find sources for everything. Just because something is not cited, doesn't mean it isn't neutral.

I think that deals with all of the concerns stated so far. Maybe over the next few months we can work on getting everything properly cited. While the article perhaps needs some more work, I think overall I think it meets the spirit of being neutral. Graniterock 00:41, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Page name

Does anyone have a problem with moving this article back to Westboro Baptist Church? If not, the redirect with that name must be speedily deleted first. Guanaco 01:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I vote Move --Orborde 05:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Katrina

I find it hard to believe these whackjobs haven't commented on the New Orleans disaster yet. Anyone know anything about that?--Deridolus 23:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Check the front page of godhatesamerica, it beings "Thank God for Katrina [...] New Orleans, symbol of America, seen for what it is: a putrid, toxic, stinking cesspool of fag fecal matter." -jackd, 7 September 2005

"I Like to Watch" song

The article here says WBC wrote a song titled "I Like to Watch," however I thought that that was a song by the Church of Euthanasia. Also, the description of the WBC song reminds me of the CoE's video (careful, it's not at all work-safe). I googled "I Like to Watch" Westboro, but all I got were Wikipedia clones. Xen0phile | (talk) 04:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

It very well could be/could have been, but it was attributed to Phelps, and Phelps' quasi-sexual comments relating to the attacks certainly didn't help to dispel any rumors. I think at one point Phelps even commented that he enjoyed watching re-runs of the footage of the planes striking the towers, which is what the narrator of the song talks about; this probably only reinforced the idea that Phelps was responsible, and Phelps certainly didn't put forth any effort to dispel those rumors. I'll adjust the article accordingly.70.243.32.96 04:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Baptist Part II

I think there needs to be a separate section describing the congregational polity of the Baptist Church. As far as I know, aren't most individual Baptist congregations supposed to be doctrinally independant? Somone reading this article who is not familiar with how Baptists organize might think that there is some Baptist pope somewhere that approves of Fred Phelps and Westboro, while in truth they may not really be affiliated with or accountable to any other Baptist individuals congregations. It might also be good to include a representative quote from other Baptists saying something to the effect of "Many/Most Baptists disagree with Fred Phelps and dissociate themselves from his message of hate" MPS 19:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hierarchy of sin

Has WBC ever actually professed this "hierarchy of sin"? I can't find anything on a "hierarchy of sin" on Google relating to WBC or Phelps except on Wikipedia mirrors. Guanaco 21:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The "hierarchy of sin" set forth by Westboro is as follows:

• Insulting or opposing Westboro Baptist Church or any of its members (which the group equates with blasphemy of the Holy Ghost, listed in the Bible as the sole unforgivable sin)
• Homosexuality
• All forms of sexual activity, other than that within the confines of marriage and only in the "traditional" missionary position (the group has, on at least one occasion, branded all non-missionary sex as "kinky")
• Abortion
• Adultery

They have never said that. It originates in the author's imagination. In fact, Phelps has said that the Bible is silent on what goes on sexual in a marriage and that the marriage bed is undefiled. I'd like to see something that says all non-missionary sex is kinky.

1) They say that mockery of WBC is equivalent with blasphemy of the Holy Ghost, the unforgivable sin. This tops Homosexuality, since they have "repentant fag" testimonies 2) Homosexuality, obviously 3) Look it up on WBC for yourself: "No kinky sex"

I will grant you, though, that the order of 3-5 could probably be shifted.

They need to get their priorities straightend out.

Transcript

Can someone explain why the transcript is so fervently being deleted (and referred to as "broken?") It's the church's beliefs in the words of two of its members, which, aside from Phelps, this entry does not have. It's rare for anyone except Fred, Margie, or Shirley to speak in public about their attitudes. For two twenty-something girls (Libby, I believe, might be only 19) to speak out as such, especially as they did, and to voice the contradictory opinion that they want everyone to go to hell, and that they like the pain of others regardless of any holy obligation, deserves recognition.70.242.1.244 06:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The transcript is broken because it is poorly formatted and does not include the questions the girls were asked. Also, where did you find this transcript? We need a link or the name of some publication so we can verify it. Unverifiable content should be removed. Guanaco 07:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I will post the link this time; as you shall see, it is not "broken" because they weren't asked any questions. They simply walked up to the interviewer and began spouting this stuff. The entirety of what they said is duplicated.

I don't believe the transcript should be included. 1) The transcript is poorly constructed, and what they are saying is hard to understand out of context. 2) No major ideas come across that haven't already been stated in the article. 3) The link to the video already exists, and the conversation with the girls is one of the most minor events of the video. I don't believe that the transcript adds anything to the article that is not already there in a more concise manner. Avengerx 00:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the importance of exposing the lack of unification of thought and theology within the Westboro group. If it can be shown that when the family/congregants of Phelps are not being directly led, taught, or told what to say by Phelps or one of his high-ranking children are subject to their own anxieties and inability to think for themselves on the issues at hand, then this would be a significant feature of the Westboro group. Distingusihing features often make it into an article, because here at Wikipedia, we try to expose the truth rather than cover it up or attempt to stifle it. We are all adamantly aware of the thought of Phelps but light is rarely shed on his "lesser" children and especially his grandchildren. His grandchildren are a part of the church as well and your request of omitting this video and any content within is tantamount to the undermining of the very principles Wikipedia stands for in the quality of articles. --68.110.21.142 13:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Westboro Baptist Church a cult?

I don't think so! I think they have some things in common with the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, which is led by the British Commonwealth's fiercest Royalist, Ian Paisley of Ulster. What do you think? - (Aidan Work 06:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC))

Cult (kult) n.- A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.

1). Westboro's doctrine is so far deviated from any accepted form of Christianity that it has been deemed radical, extremist, and often blasphemous by nearly every religious denomination in the country, including the Baptists to whom they loosely affiliate themselves

2). The majority of the members of Westboro live inside of a fenced compound with a communal backyard, as already addressed in the article, with their church being the furnished basement of their leader. Those who do not live within the compound live within the immediate vicinity, and though rumor does not substantiate inclusion, it has been talked about for a while now in Topeka that WBC is attempting to gain ownership of the land around the compound so as to expand itself.

3). Fred Phelps declares himself to be a direct prophet of God and the only man alive on Earth who is capable of bringing anyone salvation. He claims that following or not following him directly correlates to salvation or damnation, directly, and that anyone who slights him has automatically earned damnation. He exerts total and absolute control over the members of his group, with those who manage to break away either being "damned" by the group or, on at least one occasion, mysteriously ending up dead.

WBC is, quite literally, a textbook case of a cult.70.242.1.244 20:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Cult is a POV view, if you are not a member, you might say cult, but if you are a member, you would say organization. This is Wikipedia, we must maintain NPOV. «»Who?¿?^meta 18:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Cult is not a POV view. Of course the members aren't going to term it a cult; does that mean that no recognized cult can be called so because the members believe that it is not? What about Jim Jones, was he not a cult leader? The Westboro Baptist Church fits the dictionary definition of a cult to the 't'. I vote for the proper terminology on the page.Avengerx 19:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Given the negative connotations of the word cult, I can understand the need to be careful of what is called a cult and what is not. However, just because a word has negative connotations does not automatically make it a word that can not be used to describe things. If a cult is characterized by extreamist views, by an authoritarian leader with people living in unconvential manner, then yes, by the standards of society from which Westboro opperates, it is clearly a cult (not sure what other standard we would use). Thus I agree with Avengerx, cult is the terminology we should be using. Granite T. Rock 01:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

WBC certainly meets our definition of cult: a cult is a cohesive group of people (often a relatively small and new religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream.

WBC has 150 members and is relatively new. Their religious beliefs are far outside the mainstream, and most people are strongly offended by WBC's picketing practices. How could this group not be a cult? Guanaco 03:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The word "cult" is obviously POV. There are many definitions of "cult". Wikipedia has no definition for "cult", although we have an article about the topic we are not a dictionary. For this reason I have removed it yet again. Rhobite 00:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite, the word is an English word with obvious meaning and according to ANY dictionary you read, WBC falls under the category of a cult. There is a majority of people within the discussion who have agreed that cult is not POV. If you do not like the definition of the word, I suggest you appeal to the makers of dictionary to alter the meaning. I am going to revert, and we can discuss the a possible change here. Avengerx 00:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions are irrelevant to this discussion. Dictionaries give broad definitions, they are not prescriptive language guides. Dictionaries are useless in most debates and arguments. The question we should be asking is whether there are negative connotations to the word "cult". The answer is yes. Therefore we must attribute any statements accusing them of being a cult. We cannot state it as a fact due to the NPOV policy. Truth is not an exception to the NPOV policy. Rhobite 01:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you at war with the dictionary establishment? Regardless, the negative connotations that follow the word 'cult' are natural. There are obvious negative connotations with words like 'facist' or 'dictator', but we still must use them when they apply. While the members of Westboro Baptist Church may not feel that they are a cult, but 99% of the English speaking world does. If we took into account the feelings of every person and group covered in Wikipedia, we would have Charles Manson and Jim Jones protesting their status as cult leaders. Catch my drift? Avengerx 01:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm just tired of people who think that dictionaries provide "true definitions" of anything. All terms with negative or positive connotations should be used extremely cautiously in Wikipedia. Since the word "cult" is negative and poorly defined, we need to be very careful about using it. As I said dictionaries provide broad, unusable definitions. Anti-cult groups typically have checklists, none of which are authoritative or widely accepted definitions. Also this has nothing to do with hurting WBC's feelings, it is simply a requirement of the NPOV policy that we use neutral language. Rhobite 03:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

You're still avoiding my line of reasoning based upon the fact that if WBC isn't a cult, what is? Your logic is that we shouldn't refer to them as a cult because it has a negative connotation. The actions of the WBC are all worthy of a negative connotation by society. Under your line of reasoning, the People's Temple shouldn't be called a cult because that would involve a value judgement. Nothing can be described completely without bias or opinion; especially when it comes to sensitive topics such as religion. However, if an overarching percentage of society believes that something is deserving of a negative connotation, it is indeed academically appropriate to note that in an encyclopedia entry. WBC is a cult by dictionary definition, and by common concensus. Your logic is obviously flawed as per my People's Temple example. What say you now? Avengerx 04:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It is also flawed logic to say that since we call People's Temple a cult, we should apply the label indiscriminately based on a dictionary definition. Let's stay on the topic of this article. I do not think there is a consensus to call WBC a cult, either on this site or in the media (media coverage of WBC usually refrains from using the term). I also think the language in the People's Temple article should be modified to say that the group was universally recognized as a cult, rather than stating that they were a cult as a fact. Rhobite 15:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of labelling WBC as a cult, perhaps instead it should be stated that WBC is compatible with Dictionary X's definition of a cult. That is at least NPOV and perhaps factual (unless you want to dispute that it doesn't meet the definition as in Dictionary X). To pull things back a bit, I guess the broader question is, do we exclude words from Wikipedia if they have a negative connotation? We clearly do not allow derogatory terms except under special circumstances (such an entry for such a term). But is this true of all words with a negative connotation? And if so, what would the threshold be to make a word "negative". Granite T. Rock 19:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I would respond by saying that dictionaries are not good sources for resolving POV disputes. We do not exclude words from Wikipedia if they have a negative connotation - but we do require that their use is cited. It is fine for the article to mention notable people and groups who have accused WBC of being a cult. However Wikipedia can't state, as a fact, that they are a cult. That is POV. Rhobite 20:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, fast reply. I got a conflict edit when I went back to clarify what I was saying. Perhaps a good reference to read on this is [NPOV - Characterizing Opinions of People's Work]. Just as we allow words with positive connotations into wikipedia in a certain way, should we not do the same with negative connotated words? Thus still stating WBC is a cult in the context that it is a widely viewed opinion (but perhaps not fact) would be IMHO the best way to go. So perhaps something to the effect of "WBC is considered by many to be a cult" or "Many people attribute cult-like attributes to WBC...." Granite T. Rock 20:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

But it isn't a widely held opinion. As I mentioned above, most news articles about WBC don't use the term "cult". I think it would be best if we cited specific people and organizations who believe that WBC is a cult. Rhobite 21:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Two points: A) we should not apply a label like "cult" based on our own research. If someone has notably used the label then we should attribute it to them. B) the lead paragraph should not contain negative info. We should first give a sympathetic description of the group, then give a sympathetic summary of the other views. -Willmcw 21:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

American Legion riders

http://www.thevistaonline.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/11/10/43736dea190d6 http://www.greeleytrib.com/article/2005111120076 http://www.godistheterrorist.com/ http://www.godhatesfags.com/fliers/nov2005/20051111_god-hates-vets.pdfhttp://timesunion.com/AspStories/st

Other Prejudices

I removed the Other Prejudices section. First of all, it claimed that the WBC espouses racism, which it does not. Secondly, it linked to the extremely crappy wikipedia article, Racial_and_political_views_of_the_Westboro_Baptist_Church. It seems that people are so incensed with the WBC that they want to accuse them of everything under the sun. They're against gays, catholics, jews, etc etc, so they must hate blacks too, right? Well, as far as I can tell, no. They openly preach against racism, in fact. The accusations of racism against them boil down to personal accusations against Fred Phelps from decades ago, and claims that they are being subtly racist in their attacks on gays and others who happen to be black. Given that the WBC does everything it can to preach its views in as offensive and provocative way as possible, I find it to be hard to believe that it also has racist views which it is keeping secret. Until the day they wave signs saying "God hates niggers", or until you can come up with some real evidence of racist beliefs on their part, stop accusing them of this. --Xyzzyplugh 15:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The crappy article, Racial_and_political_views_of_the_Westboro_Baptist_Church, lists numerous instances of racist language and behavior. -Willmcw 17:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I just read it again. It contained one >accusation< of recent racist language by Fred Phelps, and various other claims of anti-black attitudes by Fred Phelps from 30 or 40 years ago. Whether Fred Phelps was a racist 30 years ago is irrelevant, as he and his church currently preach against racism. The only relevant and verifiable claims are those that say the WBC is revealing subtle racist attitudes, by using images of gorillas at times in their fliers attacking black opponents, etc.

Even this is taken out of context, as we'd need to check to see if they're attacking people of all races in just as offensive ways, but let's assume this does reveal subtle racist feelings or attitudes in Phelps and whoever else is running the church. This still doesn't mean that the WBC >espouses< racism, as the current WBC article claims. If I preach against racism, but have some racist feelings which inadvertently come out at times in subtle ways, can I really be claimed to espouse racism?

I'm no defender of the WBC, I think they're a cult headed by a lunatic, but that doesn't mean wikipedia articles about them should be anti-WBC propaganda accusing them of everything possible. Tell me why the current Other Prejudices section is accurate and appropriate in its current form. --Xyzzyplugh 20:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Using images of gorillas in flyers about blacks is not subtle racism. It's flagrant racism. If they do that while supposedly condemning racism that just shows they are hypocrites. The fact that the racism is in the form of images rahter than words makes little difference - it's still "speech". And the incidents are not all from 30 years ago. At least one is from 12 years ago. Further the section in question also mentions prejudices against other religions, which you don't deal with. If you want to say that they also claim to be anti-racist, and have a source for it, then that would be NPOV.-Willmcw 19:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've rewritten the Other Prejudices section, taking into consideration what you said above. I'm not sure if the footnote I was trying to use worked properly, it seems to be pointing to the wrong one. --Xyzzyplugh 23:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's good. I tweaked it slightly to match the wording in the source. Thanks, -Willmcw 23:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)