Talk:Westboro Baptist Church/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Speculation about the servers

Their websites (at least some) have been working today. They must just be swamped. Please don't add speculations to the webpage about why they might be down. Anthony Krupp 00:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the WHOIS-info, godhatesfags.com has been suspended by the domain-registrar for violating their AUP 91.59.238.64 14:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

At this time (see sig) godhatesfags.com is returning Network Solutions AUPTERMINATION server rather than godhatesfags.com's usual DNS sever. Network Solutions AUP is found here [1] and the whois is returning

Visit AboutUs.org for more information about GODHATESFAGS.COM AboutUs: GODHATESFAGS.COM

Registrant:

Westboro Baptist Church

ATTN: GODHATESFAGS.COM

c/o Network Solutions

P.O. Box 447

Herndon, VA 20172-0447

Domain Name: GODHATESFAGS.COM

Record expires on 23-Jan-2017

Record created on 22-Jan-1997

Database last updated on 02-Nov-2007

Domain servers in listed order: Manage DNS

INVALID-DNS.AUPTERMINATION.COM 216.168.228.253

NOT-HOSTED.AUPTERMINATION.COM 216.168.228.254

So, it appears that as of today, someone successfully complained to Network Solutions. Rick Boatright 15:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like they're back up on Freedom Networks. A2-computist 14:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If WBC was actually shut down (censored) for violating some sort of user argreement I think that might be worth commenting on.Geo8rge 18:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Counter Protests

In the counter protest section it lists the Patriot Guard Riders as one of the counter protest groups. The Patriot Guard never has been, nor ever will be counter protesting the WBC. The Patriot Guard's sole purpose in showing up at the funerals, as INVITED GUESTS OF THE FAMILY, is to show honor and respect for the deceased, the family, and the community of the fallen solder. They do not counter protest in any way; they don't even talk to or even look a the WBC if they show up. The Patriot Guard will come if invited to show honor and respect, whether not the WBC says they are coming. The Patriot Guard stresses that WE are not a protest group. Please change the characterization of the PGR comments. Honeydog101 10:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)HoneydogHoneydog101 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

To a degree; however, the Patriot Guard's website is clear that one of their aims is to 'Shield the mourning family and their friends from interruptions created by any protestor or group of protestors'; and that the initial aim of those who established it was to 'form a battle plan to combat Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church'. Perhaps 'counter protest' is inaccurate, as the Patriot Guard do not protest per se (though 'may sing, rev our engines or say the Pledge of Allegiance' in order to shield mourners from protesters), but it seems a valid inclusion in that general area of the article if worded appropriately. TSP 17:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I totally disagree with you TSP. You left out the other portion the first and most important part of what we do at the funerals which is to pray our respects to the fallen soldier and his family. I've been at over 30 funerals with the PGR, I've only seen the WBC show up twice (even though they threaten to show up at almost every one of them). Whether the WBC is there or not is irrelevant. Mention of the PGR is ok, we just are not and never will be a counter protest group. Honeydog101 10:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)HoneydogHoneydog101 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I left it out because you'd already mentioned it. Yes, it is true that the group's primary stated aim is to "Show our sincere respect for our fallen heroes, their families, and their communities." However, it is also the case that its second stated aim is to "Shield the mourning family and their friends from interruptions created by any protestor or group of protestors" (Ref: [2]); and that the group was set up in direct response and opposition to Westboro Baptist Church(Ref: [3]). As I say, 'counter protest' is probably the wrong term, but it seems valid to mention the group in that general area of the article. TSP 14:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I added a section that refers to the Patriot Guard Riders WP page. Geo8rge 17:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't need its own section, so I moved it into the counter-protests section. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 17:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems we all agree the PGR are not a protest group themselves, and that they were initially formed to counter the protests of WBC. In the current article ([4]), the PGR are listed under the heading "Counter protests". Therefore a reader may be left with the incorrect impression that the PGR are themselves a protest group. So I think the description of the PGR should be moved to a different section. None of the existing sections seems to fit, so I'll re-create their own section. HelloAnnyong – I think if a group now numbering 120,000 began as a response to WBC, then this deserves its own (albeit short) section. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 09:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a grammatical error that I don't have the authority to fix.

Under the "Responses" topic, in the "Laws Prohibiting Funeral Protests" section, there is an error (I believe) in the last sentence of the first paragraph.

"On January 11, 2006 the bill unanimously (11-0) passed a committee vote,[49] and while members of the church had showed up in Kokomo, Indiana, to protest, they were nowhere to be seen during or after the funeral service."

I believe "had showed up" should be "had shown up"

MetallichickX 10:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right, MetallichickX. I edited the relevant section, but decided that to "show up" is not very encylopaedic language, so I reworded a bit. TrulyBlue 12:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought that my correction still sounded wrong, but I couldn't quite place why. I was hoping that I wasn't making a fool out of myself. Nice revision! MetallichickX 11:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

In the seventh ¶ of Activities and statements, the phrase "...the town's city auditorium..." occurs. Logically, while a town could have a municipal auditorium only a city could have a city auditorium. Dick Kimball (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Since fixed. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Website

The website isnt back on line... who the heck said it was? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.38.64 (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The server is resolving again, and the URL loads a page with a statement about a revamping the site, so it _is_ back online, even if most of the content is unavailable. A2-computist 15:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Opposition to WBC Web Sites

The section "Opposition to WBC Web Sites" needs to go. The section itself was added by Iridius Izzarne. I can't find any articles on this. The section is entirely uncited, suffers from self-promotion, and possibly breaks WP:COI. I see no reason why it should stay. Does anyone? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 14:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I should add that, as per WP:SOAP, Wiki is not a place for self-promotion. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 14:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I created the section, and added the need for a citation, since I saw it in the general introduction but it didn't seem worthy of being so prominent. I'm happy for it to go if there are no cites and there's a prima facie case for it being WP:SOAP. TrulyBlue 15:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I vote that the Opposition to the WBC Web Sites stay, but that citations be added. I noticed that the WBC website was intermittently down during that timeframe. However, I do not believe that The Planet is the company that hosts godhatesfags.com, the IP address for godhatesfags.com is in the netblock for Cox Communications NETBLK-WI-CBS-70-184-224-0, this is consistent with one of Shirlee's known email accounts. I also think that there needs to be proof that Iridius' complaint is the one responsible for the site being down. It is also interesting to note that speakfree.net is a domain owned by WBC, it appears that they have now purchased their own netblock (WESTBORO BAPT CHURCH-051222023102 SBC07025216918429051222023111) so they can host their domains directly. 69.111.244.205 08:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the section is uncited and that the above information (which is Original Research and not really usable in the wiki) sheds more doubt on the whole area. We don't have any authoritative information on whether the web site was deliberately pulled, why by, and on what grounds, or whether it was simply flooded. On that basis the section is speculation, and unless someone puts in some good citations in the next couple of days, it should go. It's just one event in the history of WBC, and hardly noteworthy in the context of the whole article, anyway.

By the way, the current citation of Planet's Ts&Cs is not adequate to cofirm what actually happened to the site.TrulyBlue 10:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We don't need to make a note every time a website goes down, unless it's something truly notable (e.g. when Suprnova.org was first taken down.) — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 13:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Even then, Wikipedia is not for journalism. It can wait until the subject has been covered by at least one reliable external news source. If something is important enough, these days that will be within hours if not minutes. If not, well, maybe it wasn't as notable as you thought. TSP 14:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of any support, other than from Iridius who is a little too close to the event, I've deleted the section. Even if it is shown that the ISP took it down briefly and re-instated it, that's not significant unless maybe there was some sort of legal argument. TrulyBlue 16:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"Dual genealogical relationships"

Can anyone clarify this? Currently the wiki implies that some members are "married to the brother or sister of their father or mother". Is it legal for someone to marry their uncle or aunt in Kansas? Can anyone cite a specific such marriage within WBC? I would have thought that there would be incest laws preventing this, but there again, I'm not from Kansas. TrulyBlue 09:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No one related as first cousins or closer can get married in Kansas. First cousins can be married elsewhere (e.g. Alabama, Texas, New Mexico, Colorado) and would still be married even if they moved to Kansas. Aunt-nephew and Uncle-niece marriages are forbidden in all 50 U.S. states, except for Jews in Rhode Island. Uncle-niece marriages were previously allowed in Georgia (because it is not a relationship forbidden in Leviticus). - Nunh-huh 09:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Nunh-huh. It seems to me that the specific examples are probably incorrect, so I'll remove them and ask for a citation for the general claim of multiple relationships (by marriage). TrulyBlue 14:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Other prejudices

While I heartily agree, is that heading not just a wee bit POV? 146.176.61.2 (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. What would be best: "Other targets", "Other beliefs", or something else? TrulyBlue (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Skomorokh ^incite 00:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but isn't 'Value judgement' itself POV? From its wiki: "The term is also employed, often in a disparaging sense, to imply that a statement is not objectively true" and "the term can be used both in a positive sense, ... or a disparaging sense" (but there's nothing about it being used in a neutral sense). Damn these words, damn this objectivity, it's all too hard! TrulyBlue (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is another one of the prejudices. According to this video (of WBC members) Westboro Church now hates every single person on the planet.

http://www.warrenellis.com/?p=5361 ColombianConservative (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Jokela school shooting

I would like to ask why my edit regarding to Jokela school shooting and this church was removed? It was true that they published stuff about it. Yakuzakyuu (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It was not a slogan. They publish news articles every week, a news article is not a sloan. They said they will come to picket to Helsinki. Now, if they do that and we have a source that they had signs "Thank God for 9 Dead Finns" then it is a slogan. But haven't heard of them yet here. :) --Pudeo⺮ 09:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. This cleared things out. But I would like to see how our police forces would react to them..Yakuzakyuu (talk) 16:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Addicted to Hate manuscript

Stop adding links to this thing. It is not a reliable source, it's a bunch of text written by some unknown person who may or may not be a reporter. It was never published, it doesn't belong linked to any wikipedia article. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the bible entirely a hate manuscript?

Love for Enemies - Matthew 5:43

43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'

44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you

That trumps all the other contradictions and vagenesses even if WBC refuse to acknowedge it in order to push their hate agenda. 146.87.193.90 (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:Talk this isn't to discuss WBC or the bible, its to discuss the article. Coffeepusher (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Heath Ledger

I came here because I wasn't sure the flyer circulating around the internet and supposedly distributed by the WBC was from a REAL organization. I am shocked to find that it is, in fact, real. And while I am as disturbed as the next person by this hate group, the wording in the part about Heath Ledger shows an obvious bias and should probably be changed. (I mean, this article doesn't need to lean in any direction; these people speak totally for themselves.) 140.247.250.223 (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

could you be more clear on how it is bias. my personal observation is that stating they will protest and then having a copy of the news anouncement is as accurate as you can get without adding any bias. Coffeepusher (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The funeral will be held in Perth, Australia. Are they intending to travel to Australia? 58.106.24.1 (talk) 05:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

as I understand, they actually don't protest alot of the one's they say they will. but no word on if they retracted their statement. Coffeepusher (talk) 05:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

They plan on protesting the American remembrance ceremony, most likely. They'd be arrested in AustraliaAudhumlaX (talk) 07:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Experience suggests that they announce these things primarily for publicity rather than because they actually intend on carrying through. It's expensive to fly to Australia, and they get plenty of publicity by simply announcing that they will disrupt the burial. Ledger's body has already left the U.S., and there are no memorials planned, so I think the risk of the Westboro dullards actually coming out of their lair is pretty slim. - Nunh-huh 07:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Changed classification

Changed classification from church to hate group. Many will diagree, but lets call a duck a duck. No need to say otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.33.109.12 (talk) 12:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually there is a need to say otherwise, as "hate group" is a point of view (granted, it's a point of view shared by everyone on the planet...), however "church" is less of a viewpoint. - Koweja (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments about Gays....what really happens in these churches?

Being involved with one of these "churches" years ago I noticed many indiscretions including "homosexuality", "adultery", "husband and wife swapping"etc...We regularly received a sermon from a particular member of the church who would "rebuke" members of the congregation on adultery when we later realised he had seduced a male friend of mine who attended the church. I might also add that this behaviour was right across the board in many of these churches. I don't have a problem with homosexuals, adulterers, I'm simply amazed how these extremist churches criticise these behaviours when they are rife within their own circles. They should perhaps care to remember that they don't have the right to "Play God" , only God can be the judge of what's right and wrong. Out of morbid curiosity I had a look at the website belonging to this particular church and all I can see if a string of foul mouthed profanities regarding "gays and "adulterers". I feel as though they perhaps need some Christian guidance?

(Loretta71 (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC))

I think I can decide what is right or wrong without any sort of god. My decision? These people are wrong, and I'm damn surprised that the article is as unbiased as it is. Good job, guys. I couldn't have done it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.59.183 (talk) 03:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

These people are not worth to mention in an encyclopedia

I will never understand why these hate people are in the Wikipedia! I really feel ashamed. Why are they here? Because they stand in the media?? They are not religious nor famous, they are not worth mentioning! I think they are really happy to find this big article about them and they really don't care about the content. If they were a big movement, ok, but they are only 80 people. You are giving them a status they don't deserve. They are greedy for any attention they can get. If you put them here you have to put every single person who stands in the speaker's corner in Hyde Park. If you really think, that they have to be in Wikipedia, give them three sentences, that's more than enough. Please think about. Please excuse my English, I'm not a native speaker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luzymae (talk • contribs) 13:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they're very famous. As they are notable, they warrant an article here, even if they are a small group. As for giving them attention, well first, they have plenty of it already so an article on Wikipedia won't tip the scales at all, and second, Wikipedia (as a whole) does not have opinions on anything, and therefore we don't refuse to write articles on subjects that people disagree with. Even if almost everyone on the planet disagrees with them. - Koweja (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. I think that is the other side of the coin in a fast moving media world. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. I hope that the attention will die with the death of the clan chief. And then, in retrospective someone will revise the article in regard to influence and importance of these hatemongers. And dubbed them as a marginal phenomenon worth only a sentence. Hope so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luzymae (talk • contribs) 16:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This group gets a lot of attention because they make for emotional, controversial reports and interviews. It's more of a comment on the media's exploitation of these types of stories than about Phelps' actual influence. The WBC actually has very little, if any, influence outside itself. The WBC can be seen as relevant in another way - how obscure religious doctrine can inspire these types of groups. To be fair, what the WBC stands for says is in line with one interpretation of the Bible.

WBC is IRL trolls. Which is humorous at worst. Plus they don't mind black people. Wikifried (talk) 05:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's actually very important to have an entry about this. They have served as the best possible "test case" for those looking for chinks in the armor of the first amendment and therefore could have a measurable influence in degrading the entire American system of values. And think about if you were a parent of a college kid who died in a house fire and these people showed up - wouldn't you feel better knowing that everyone who saw such an ugly thing could at least look it up pretty easily online and know it wasn't their fault? An encyclopedia can't leave out villains and vermin, however nice the world would be without them. Wnt (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Charlesfirth.JPG

Image:Charlesfirth.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Cults

Should this article be included in Category:Cults? I have removed it because no other specific religious denominations/sects seem to be included in the category. The category seems to be reserved for things like "cult practices", not actual organizations. Ditto with Template:Cults — this article is not linked on the template, and normally if the article is not linked on the template the template is not included on the page. I'm not trying to defend the organization or its tactics by any means, but I think there's something inherently problematic (POV?) with an encylopedia using the word "cult" to refer to an organization that claims to be a Christian church. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It is impossible to imagine a worse group of people. Total scum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.228.10 (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

WBC is a small extended family cult of personality based upon Fred Phelp's bigotry, with "church" status for tax evasion purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. B. R. Lang (talk • contribs) 16:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

how many followers do theses church have?

Shouldn't we mention how many followers this church has. I think this church is an extended family and they do not allow people to marry outside their church. I think that this church has about some 100 members. Can anyone confirm this and add this to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotogen (talk • contribs) 16:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

WBC is a relatively small organization made up primarily of the extended family of Fred Phelps. "Church" status serves as a tax shelter. The small number of individuals is significant because the small cult of personality has an expanded presence due to hosting over one dozen Internet "hate.com" websites. Describing WBC as a cult and hate group is germane, and simply stating the obvious. The number of individual followers is also important as in the case of Jim Jones' followers who drank the cool-aide as directed by him, and in so doing commited mass suicide. Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

See Drinking the Kool-Aid for added perspective on bogus "church" cults. The number of Jim Jones' followers became more important during the follow-up forensic investigations. Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)