Talk:Fred Phelps/Archive 1


 * This page has been refactored, meaning that it has been modified to condense and remove content for the sake of readability. To view the page in its original form, see the edit history.

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

Deleting the painfully obviously false live-journal link. If you really thought that was one of Phelps' offspring you're sadly mistaken.216.7.248.254

Title change
I really think this should be changed back to "Rev. Fred Phelps." It is a more specific title and what he is usually referred to as, and it distinguishes on the off chance there is another "Fred Phelps" of note. -EB-


 * The question is consistency. Nowhere else do we use titles as part of the naming of an article. What does everyone else think? Danny


 * Titles usually aren't part of article names -- eg Isaac Newton rather than Sir Isaac Newton -- Tarquin 23:38 Dec 22, 2002 (UTC)

As much as I hate my neighbor Fred, reality is that picketing funcerals and such isn't their SOLE function. They do HAVE worship services, and they also picket daily on streetcorners around Topeka... NPOV... Rick Boatright 01:00 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

"deplors her"? He can't even spell his hate speech right? -- Zoe


 * Oh, it gets MUCH worse than that.Rick Boatright

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

I've done godhatesamerica.com, have a look, comments welcome. Evercat 21:11, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

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

Picketing section
Problems with recent edits: -Seth Mahoney 23:37, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC) a later statement that he's been denounced by Christians of "virtually every affiliation" for hate speech. I'd suggest "infamous" be substituted for "highly controversial". --Chaser 06:53, Jan 7, 2006
 * 1) "Promote" homosexuality?  What does this even mean?  It reeks of POV.
 * 2) "Died as a result of homosexuality"?  What does this mean?  More POV reekiness.
 * 3) "Savagely sodomized" is POV.
 * 4) "God hates fags" is anti-homosexual hate speech.  I mean, it uses both the word "hate" and the word "fag".  Seriously, people...
 * 5) Including references to the web site and allowing readers to draw their own conclusions is, IMHO, a valuable approach.
 * 1) Describing him (in the first sentence) as "highly controversial" seems inappropriate, especially given

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

Use of REV
Fred Phelps does not use the title "reverend". He uses the title "pastor".

The reason for this is that the only Biblical use of reverend is used to refer to God and no human.

This swine should not be accorded any religious titles. For those of you who wants to add Rev., or Pastor to his name, three words for you: Check Your Sanity.


 * It would be interesting to know in which Bible translation Phelps finds the word "reverend" at all, let alone being used to refer to God.... Well, actually, no, I guess it wouldn't be that interesting.... - Nunh-huh 03:18, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Answer KJV: Psalms 111:9 - He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name.


 * I was right, it wasn't that interesting. In the RSV, that's "He sent redemption to his people; he has commanded his covenant for ever. Holy and terrible is his name!". - Nunh-huh 07:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

He may not deserve the titles, but plenty of people don't want to call Jesus of Nazerth Christ either. yet, its a title he has been given.--Tznkai 07:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

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

NPOV
Phelps is a cult leader; he is the leader of Westboro Baptist Church, a cult. Per dictionaty.com:

Cult

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.

The family lives in a fenced in, military style compound, and are totally subservient to their authoritarian, charismatic leader.... Fred Phelps.


 * Don't argue from dictionaries please. If you have a notable reference calling him a cult leader, please add it in the proper section. Do not just stick in opinionated text in the lead section with no attribution. Rhobite 05:21, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

Fred2004.JPG
This picture is so bad, it's biased. He looks evil, and though I think he is idiot, this photo should be changed.


 * I swapped the images around, so a better-looking one is at the top. Andjam 09:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm embarassed to say that the particular photo (fred2004) scared me when I first saw it... --SigmaX54 06:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Cite sources
I know people love piling on here and calling Phelps names - after all, he's despicable. Nevertheless I will ask for you to cite sources before making claims such as "a group of WBC congregants were welcomed upon their arrival in Iraq by radical Muslims shouting anti-American slogans". I couldn't find an account of their visit, and it seems unlikely that they were greeted by "radical Muslims" given that Iraq is a secular country. There is also certainly a more religiously sensitive way of saying it, if it turns out to be true. Rhobite 04:37, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Racism
Although not as pronounced as their views on homosexuality, the Westboro Baptist Church appears to espouse a form of racism. However, their racist rhetoric is often a reaction to an opposition to their anti-homosexual speech by a racially-oriented organization.

This text was deleted earlier by BlueGlowGuardian, reasons unstated, assuming because of POV.

This could use some cites. --Tznkai 04:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I really do apologize for deleting without summaries. I changed "Anti-Mexican" racism to "anti-Hispanic racism" because Mexicans alone are not a race, but a nationality. --BlueGlowGuardian 01:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

"Hispanics" are not a race either. Michael Voytinsky 07:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Also if you look closer, I didn't delete the text but moved it. There was no point of view involved. --BlueGlowGuardian 06:55, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Current edits
There are some internal discrepancies, e.g., he owed the candy company $20,000 in 1995, or in excess of $125,000.

User:70.243.35.89 has been improving on the article. From what I can tell, it seemed NPOV and mostly layout and information related. However, blanking out entire sections and not discussing or citing references may become an issue. The sections (September 11 and the Shuttle Columbia) and (Theology) were completely removed. Some of the previous edits went to Westboro Baptist Church (Topeka), but these gave no explanation. <> Who ? &iquest; ? 20:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Please reference your edits, or give a reason for their removal. Thanks.

OK, that's fair. I'll fix it back up with sources cited and reasons for moving info.
 * Thank you, for your understanding, and for the previous work done so far. Note: if you wish to sign your discussion edits, you can do so by using ~, four tildas, as they will translate into your username and datestamp.  Which you may want to register a username in the future.   <> Who ? &iquest; ?  20:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article on his links to the Democrats can be seen as an NPOV violation. It might be used in a negative way to show the Republicans in a more positive light. I suggest that it should be removed.

You want factual information removed for the sake of partisan politics? This is an encyclopedia, not Congress. Fred Phelps Jr. and Westboro had strong ties to Al Gore, and Fred Sr. has been a registered democrat for years. These things are true and verifiable, and play a large part in who these people are, good or bad. Just because someone might take offense doesn't make it NPOV. 65.71.127.228 00:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

?
Phelps' oldest son, Fred Jr. was invited to the first Clinton-Gore inauguration in 1993.

was Fred Sr invited?

someone needs to check out the SPLC info

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

It's probably the least-biased thing you'll find about him on the internet (and when I say bias, I mean positive or negative; certainly, Westboro, Christian Identity, and the Aryan Nation have only good things to say). There's real background here on him, which most of his critics will never tell you about, namely the deaths of his aunt and mother, his accomplishments as a youth, and the early years of his ministry. I (and others) have worked with what information is availible about him and tried to come up with an unbiased biography. There are some people out there who just don't give you many good things about themself to work with. 65.71.127.228 00:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

category is subjective
Although I am very sad for Phelps because his heart has no love in it, and it grieves me that he acts with such hatred toward people who also were created by God in His image, I am willing to support removal of the category, "LGBT rights opposition", strictly on the basis that this category can be applied without thought to those who, in direct contrast to Phelps, oppose "LGBT rights" on the basis of their personal belief that it would prolong "LGBT" individuals' division from God, maintaining an obstacle to God's desire to reconcile them to Himself.

This is a subjective category. Since it can be, and in my opinion has been, applied inappropriately to those who (unlike Phelps) obey the Great Commandment and love homosexuals as well, I prefer that the category be deleted.

GBC 00:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Such people, according to your own language, still oppose LGBT rights. Therefore, Category:LGBT rights opposition would still apply, and it would certainly apply to Phelps.  -Seth Mahoney 01:41, August 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, for God's sake, read what your writing. Your arguing that a person who opposes LGBT rights should not be placed under "LGBT rights opposition". I defy you to justify that. Because it can also refer to different types of beliefs? Sure, so? It isn't inappropriate to apply the category to people who "love" heterosexuals, as long as they do in fact oppose LGBT rights. The category isn't subjective, its quite simple really. Its even less subjective to put Phelps in it.


 * I think it would be wholly inappropriate to remove that section for the reasons you stated. People who "oppose 'LGBT rights' on the basis of their personal belief" are just as guilty as Fred Phelps of being hateful individuals and of treating them as less than citizens.  You display the same xenophobia, etchnocentrism and religious arrogance that Fred Phelps does and they have no business in deciding what goes on in the wikipedia or in the government of any country on planet earth (yes i know i'm late to the party) 65.125.133.211 14:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, if its "inapproriate" to refer to the "loving" opponents by this category, then wouldn't that imply that Phelps is the "appropriate" kind of person to apply the category to? Or should we not designate anyone by this cat? Carolynparrishfan 21:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Affiliations with Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro
The wording in this section is currently a bit confusing, but I'm not sure how to correct it. The relevant part of Phelp's letter appears to be: "If our government and laws will allow it, and at the invitation of your government, we would like to send a delegation from Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, to preach the Gospel on the streets of Baghdad for one week in the near future." Did Saddam's reply specifically mention Phelp's children, or did he grant the request as stated, namely for any delegation from Westboro Baptist Church?

Woseph 20:23:49, 2005-08-25 (UTC)


 * It's just tricky because 90% of Westboro is made up of Phelps' children and grandchildren, with his children being the "leaders" of the pickets. (It's an interesting side note, perhaps worth noting somewhere, that oftentimes during a hostile situation, Westboro picketers will arrange themselves so that the youngest children are on the outside, followed by the women and teenage girls, with the boys and the men in the middle)70.243.39.62 18:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * OK. I rewrote the first paragraph, I hope it better reflects the actual contents of Phelp's letter.

Authorship
I deleted some speculation to the effect of "since Phelps owned a bunch of books about the Renaissance, the biographies his kids claim he wrote are probably well researched and thought out." The man thought that Truman Capote gave JFK AIDS by playing football with him. I'd say you need to read these books before jumping to a conclusion like that.

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

Anybody have an accurate number on the amount of members?
I've heard anywhere from 75-200.


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

"Masturbating Horses"
Hall Monitor, did you even read the article before you sent me a message accusing me of vandalism, threatened to have me banned, and RVed my edits? Fred Phelps delivered a sermon on October 2nd, 2005, in which he accused George Bush of masturbating horses. This was already written in the article before I edited it! All I did was:

1) Changed "president of the United States" to specify Bush 2) Moved the quote to a more appropriate place within the paragraph

All you did by RVing my edit was change Bush back to "president" and move the quote.70.243.32.96 02:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

This is out of context. Recall that Laura Bush had recently joked that George Bush had tried to milk a male horse at his ranch. Obviously, Phelps was referencing that. This is just typical Phelps vileness, not senile dementia.

That is true. | 15th paragraph. BabuBhatt 00:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Article Dilemma
Some folks have objected, that someone like Phelps does not deserve such an extensive article, which may serve merely to publicize him. As the saying goes, there's no such thing as bad publicity.

And it's true, every time I see a new item about Phelps and his antics, I wonder if Phelps really cares about how atrocious he is, as long as he gets coverage. And I wonder if Phelps really does qualify as news, beyond the media's quest for the lurid. So in this regard, one might question the value of any article on this puke.

One good precedent is Hitler. There have been many really fine books written about Hitler, and they leave no doubt as to his evil. Nevertheless, so fascinated by Hitler and the Nazis, and despite my revulsion at their evil, I find myself replaying Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will for its visceral appeal. So I wonder: if Nazis can have such an effect on one who fancies himself in control of his animal impulses, could this quasi-Nazi Phelps likewise appeal to those who are unrestrained in giving vent to their visceral urges, much like animals who perform analingus because they can. Regardless of merit, does this article rate a single gay bashing it may provoke?

When I saw the length of this article, I was a bit dismayed for the above reasons. Then, I read it. The authors and editors have creatied a very well-informed and well-documented article on Fred Phelps. It is certainly a good candidate for Featured Article. Should anyone find exculpatory documentation or wish to present "the other side," that's what wiki is for. The claim that the article is subjective because Phelps is pure controversy is nonsense. Phelps is to homophobia as Hitler is to anti-Semitism. They are both examples of pernicious notions when carried to logical (or illogical) extremes, and for this, their coverage is justified if for no other reason than edification. In articles about terrorism or the Holocaust, we are not required to present the side of mass murderers, just to achieve balance.

For Alan Bullock's Hitler, a Study in Tyranny, we might call this article, "Fred Phelps, a Study in Hatred".


 * J M Rice 16:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

A Finnish national

 * Phelps' hatred for Finns began on 1998, when a Finnish national, name withdrawn by request, humiliated him on a religious debate.

Withdrawn where? The religious debate? The media coverage? Wikipedia itself?

If it's Wikipedia itself, who has the authority to honor such requests for withdrawal? Anyone could add the name. Is this information readily available in external sources or not? If it is, how do we justify not citing them? (If it is not, we don't need justification for leaving it out; Wikipedia is not a primary source and we don't add "facts" just because they exist.)

If the information is deemed unencyclopedic (I could see this) we should just remove the "name withdrawn by request" phrase. We're not made to look better by confessing that we have the information but are censoring ourselves. JRM · Talk 20:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I could not find a source for anything in this paragraph. An anonymous user added it in late September, basically in its current form, without giving a reference. Ashibaka tock 23:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * then the "name withdrawn by request" is not only unencylcopedic but it's blatantly untrue - wikipedians didn't remove his name by request, it was never there in the first place. I was rather suprised to have seen this after Wikipedia's problem in germany: but now it makes sense (it's disinformation) Lordkazan 14:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Treason?

 * As the Finnish police stated that his safety cannot be guaranteed should he arrive in Finland, and that should he carry out his intentions he would be arrested and sentenced for treason on account of defacing the national flag, he never carried through his threat.

Phelps isn't Finnish—how could he possibly commit treason against Finland? Does Finland have a different definition of "treason" or is another crime intended here? Defacement of the national flag could be a crime in itself, but then no treason would be involved for foreigners. JRM · Talk 20:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I've no idea about Finland, but British law allows a non-national to be tried and convicted on charges of treason; see R v Ahlers for a high-profile case in this vein. 81.110.86.44 06:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This is interesting since it seems to make no sense; "treason" is understood to mean betrayal by a trusted person or in the case of states, acts of sedition by a national. You would expect those charged to at least have former ties to a country. Regrettably, I wouldn't know how to look up the case mentioned, high-profile as it may be. JRM · Talk 13:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "Ties to the country" need not necessarily mean they are a national, though, it seems to be a question of location (which was one of the matters discussed in Ahlers 91 years ago, though the defendant was acquitted in that case); most countries have conditions of entry which include undertaking to abide by that state's laws for the duration of your stay, so the idea is that if you are living in or visiting a country, and you engage in acts which if committed by a national would be triable as treasonous, you get charged with treason. I believe this applies whether the act in question was also a criminal offence in its own right (i.e. trying to kill the President or something), or whether it's an act which is only illegal because it's treasonous (i.e. the aforementioned flag burning). I think that's it, anyway.


 * No, it's just wrong. Burning the flag is not grounds for treason in Finland. The crime is "Suomen lipun häpäisemisestä" ("Disgracing the flag of Finland") as per Laki Suomen lipusta (Law on Finland's Flag) 26.5.1978/380, paragraph 8. I'll remove the "treason" remark. It's not even a jailable offense. --BluePlatypus 20:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

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

It looks damn creepy. I think the other ones were a little less unsettling (albeit, just a bit). -- User:Medico_Dimamico

Canada ?
The main article states that Fred et al. have been arrested numerous times in Canada. This, to the best of my knowledge, is not the case. A group of his followers (but not Fred) did visit Canada to protest, and did have their signs taken a way at customs, and did have a hotel concel their registration after they found out more about their guests. But no arrests.

Unless someone can provide backing to the arrests, that section needs to be drastically altered. Michael Voytinsky 07:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, Phelps has claimed his congregation and he have been arrested in Canada in this interview with Dan Kapelovitz: http://www.kapelovitz.com/phelps.htm -- Medico Dinamico

Forced?
This sentence rings a little of POV, unless sourced:


 * By this time, Phelps had forced several of his children to go through law school -- getting them accepted through the help of Washburn employee and Westboro member Karl Hockenbarger -- and formed a law firm with them, Phelps Chartered.

Is there a source for the "forced" wording? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

George Bush Worships Mr. Peanut
When exactly did Fred Say that Dubya worships Mr. Peanut?


 * It's in a WBC Flyer. Now that I've actually sourced everything I wish I'd saved the link; I do remember there being a picture of GWB in the lower right-hand corner of the flyer with his hands behind his back, bent over and looking down.70.242.10.213 21:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)