Talk:Fred Phelps/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Connection with Al Gore

I see no reason to keep the section about Phelps serving as a delegate for Al Gore in this article. The source for this information is an article that is definitely POV and even it only has a small quote from Phelps claiming to have been a delegate. Seems libelous to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.40.137 (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

All of the information contained in the article about the prior Phelps connection with Al Gore is accurate. You need to keep in mind that at the time of the Phelps family's invovlement with Gore, the picketing had yet to start. However, the family was very controversial in Topeka and had already started the practice of digging through garbage of those people who oppossed then (literally) and so forth. The fact that Gore would connect himself with the Phelps at the time did raise eyebrows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.240.57.238 (talk) 06:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the childhood picture?

Besides the article being about 10 times too long for the importance of this person, I wonder about the reason the picture of him as a child is included. Please let us know. Thanks. Steve Dufour 17:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC) p.s. I don't think we need the picture of his granddaughter either.

I think the childhood picture of Fred can go. The picture of the granddaughter serves a purpose - it shows that he has enlisted young children into his campaigns. Interpretation of that is not appropriate for Wikipedia, but it does say something important in a very simple, basic, factual way. Argyriou (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll take the one out then. But it could be said that we are exploiting the granddaughter just like he is by showing her picture. Does the article need more than one picture anyway? Steve Dufour 06:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that encyclopedia articles are made more interesting with pictures. The picture with his granddaughter is useful because he does enlist all members of his family that he can in the cause, including the very young, so it communicates information. The picture of him as a child is somewhat chilling because he looks quite normal. I would keep both.--Filll 06:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Erm, the fact that it's the only known existing photo of Phelps prior to becoming a preacher doesn't make it valid?209.169.73.213 03:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Wonderful job, whoever. AtH aside, this was still one of the most thoroughly and wonderfully sourced articles on Wiki. Now I see it filled with [citation needed] tags and missing sources. More than a small part of me believes that one or more Westboro members "infiltrated" Wiki, and the rest of you dosey-doed right along with them.209.169.73.213 03:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Blood, Marriage, or both??

I noticed that it mentioned that 90% of his congregation is related to him through either blood, marriage, or both. Is that suggesting that there has been intermarriage amongst family members of his congregation?

Bear in mind this could include marriage between second cousins, which is perfectly legal in the USA (I understand) and most other countries. The claim is not necessarily scandalous. garik 22:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Abuse

Why has all mention of Fred Phelps beating his children been removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.226.28 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 23 January 2007

Probably because there wasn't documentation. Especially in the case of living subjects, one must have a reliable source for a statement like that. Argyriou (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Without good sources, and maybe even with good sources, WP would be sued from here to Timbuktu. Do you have any idea how many lawyers he has in his family? This guy is dangerous, REALLY dangerous, and he has to be treated with extreme caution.--Filll 00:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you know how impossible it would be to sue Wikipedia? It's like trying to censor the internet; you can try, but it won't work for long. Soniczip 22:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

One of his male children doesn't support him and may have publicly testified about childhood abuse. Look into it, people! Websurfer135 (talk) 04:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

recall an article on that being published in The Nation several years ago, but have had trouble finding it. If I could provide the cite, does anyone still remember what the uncited text said before? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.163.152 (talk) 03:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed unverified paragraph

I removed the following paragraph, as it accuses phelps and other wbc members of crimes without any sources for these claims. This violates Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Unless a source can be found for the following, it can't stay in the article:

"An investigation was launched by the City of Topeka and the Topeka Sheriff's department in 1996. It was determined that Chief Beavers had been allowing Phelps and WBC protesters to commit crimes without arrest, and that Phelps and WBC members had taken advantage of their knowledge of the policy by becoming more abusive towards Topeka citizens; in following years, Topeka citizens formed a loose support group on the Topeka Capital-Journal message board recalling abuse they had suffered from Westboro members during this period, which included threats of sexual assault to women and children; some claimed that they had caught members of Westboro going through their garbage looking for personal information to use against them. Following the findings of the city and Sheriff's office, Beavers was asked to resign, and his successor immediately repealed the "no arrest" policy."

--Xyzzyplugh 23:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed West Point and Eagle Scout categories

Phelps not listed in the USMA Register of Graduates and Former Cadets, a comprehensive source, nor is his participation in BSA documented in the text of the article. Skbarton13 20:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

He earned the rank of Eagle Scout with Palms.[1] Phelps wanted to go to West Point.[2] Geo8rge 17:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wife?

I am interested in knowing Phelps's wife's name and his marital history. If this information could be added to the article I would appreciate it. Lovablebeautyme 04:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

His wife is named Margie. It would be nice if someone would post the picture from the law firm site on this page. [3] Geo8rge 02:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is a fact about Margie Phelps ... In the mid-1990s she actually filed for divorce from Fred (a very short lived filing) and ended up being hauled off to a local psych ward of either Stormont Vail Regional Medical Center or St. Francis Hospital by her children, including Marge Phelps, in the immediate aftermath of her attempt to get away from Fred. The divorce petition was soon dismissed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.240.57.238 (talk) 06:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Removing Addicted to Hate references

I am, again, removing Addicted to Hate references from this article. This has already been explained at length previously in this talk page, just scroll up and read it. Please try to stop adding this unreliable source to this article. --Xyzzyplugh 03:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Impressed

I came across this article and expected it to be a contentious mess. I am really impressed with how well it's organized and how neutral it's written. NickBurns 14:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The Westboro Baptist Church is more of a mess. Geo8rge 02:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately, people who edit this article are, for the most part, relatively sensible. For this reason, I have so far avoided modifying it, even to correct spelling mistakes, as the temptation to replace its entire contents with the phrase: "This man is an utter cunt," would be far too overwhelming. --Veratien (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge sections to WBC article?

Should the Efforts to discourage funeral protests and People targeted by Fred Phelps be merged into the Westboro Church article, since the protests and targeting are done by the group, not only by Phelps? Koweja 03:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Much of the Fred Phelps article could be moved to the WBC article. An alternative might be to create separate articles for the topics and have both WBC and Phelps articles with links to them. A separte Phelps Chartered page might also work. Geo8rge 00:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Opening sentence

This should be rephrased; founding a law firm is not what this guy is most notable for. 217.34.39.123 08:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Topeka Capital Journal has a new Phelps archive

This seems to be the most comprehensive so I deleted the older links Geo8rge 17:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Other Media Coverage

The movie, by K. Ryan Jones, Fall From Grace, on the life of Phelps and the various current controversies, was carried by the SHOWTIME cable channel network in December, 2007. HomeBuilding207.178.98.6 (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Anti-semite

This article should make clear that Phelps is a viscious anti-semite:

removed unsourced text per WP:BLP. Argyriou (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Forbear 21:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Semite?! Phelps is anti-everyone! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.243.215.198 (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2007

Removed Quotes about Laramie Project

Some of his ardent supporters claim that the play constitutes libel. Phelps himself says about his portrayal in the play: "They did not interview me, and portrayed me in a false light that amounts to defamatory misrepresentation." The play's authors state that all of Phelps' dialog in the play is taken verbatim from his own sermons.

I've searched for this and couldn't find any references except this article and text based off it. If someone has sources, please add it back. I currently don't see citations appearing soon so I'd prefer to remove it until someone can come up with something. mako (talk•contribs) 22:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

VT MASSACRE PROTESTING

Something shoudl be added about his attempt and announcement to try and protest as many of the funerals as possible. Thanks.

71.231.123.65 03:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That is in conjunction with the Westboro Baptist Church and is listed under such.

Kennethv 07:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This needs to be updated HIGH PRIORITY The petetion is up to 35000 signatures to stop the WBC from protesting funerals related links should be added to: VT Massacre Cho Seung Hui

((User:Callida|Callida)) 10:49, 19 April 2007 (utc)

Violence inspiring speech

The end of the opening of this article states that in addition to his standard hate speech and anti-gay propaganda we all have come to expect from Phelps, that his speech is "violence-inspiring". This needs to be cited, as it is essentially accusing him of breaking the law rather than just being an outspoken bigot, since Freedom of Speech does not tend to apply to speech intended to cause violence. The current citation [4], while I have not had time to read it thoroughly, does not even have the words "violence" or "violent" in it. --OuroborosCobra 12:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

God hates Wikipedia's hypocrisy

Why isn't the origin of the picketing mentionned? You should all watch the Hatemongers documentary. In the local park, where Fred would go with his grandson, a gay man lured the grandson into the woods. The park was frequented by gay men, mattresses could be found all over the wooded area of the park. Fred made a complaint, nothing happened. Then gays protested with signs your grandson is good, or something along those lines, of rape and pedophile nature. Fred, never looked for attention at that time, and was relatively 'nice', according to your standards. He was provoked. Too much hypocrisy and intolerance towards the Phelps. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nowhere8 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Do you have a reliable source for any of that? Sounds a little, um, made up. --OuroborosCobra 07:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do, go on Youtube and type hatemongers part 3, sounds like you're a little, umm, arrogant and close-minded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nowhere8 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 28 April 2007. 22:15, 28 April 2007

A youtube video which does not name the people it is interviewing and is incredibly sparse on sources is not what I would call reliable. I could easily make a similar video about the Acton Arboretum, wouldn't make it true or a reliable source. This still sounds made up. --OuroborosCobra 14:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to put Pastor in quotes? He's technically not an official church pastor, and he doesn't represent any real religion. 69.250.70.234 21:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

All Wikipedia regulations/guidelines/stipulations/etc aside, personally I'd love to see that happen. Dissentor 04:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Done--Can Not (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, since these mattresses which "could be found lying all over the wooded area" were not witnessed by anyone else, pictures were not taken of them and Fred Phelps, it is claimed, complained and was ignored, you have no RS on which to base your claim. One must wonder, especially since the world has witnessed what Fred Phelps, Sr. can and will do when he has perceived that he has been wronged or violated, if this incident truly happened, why didn't he take pictures of those mattresses to show the whole world what was happening in that park? Perhaps then with proof, some media attention would have occurred and we would have a RS to use, not a You Tube video which just cannot carry any valid weight in this context. Additionally, it's hard to believe Fred Phelps ever made a complaint and was ignored given what is documented in the past. 76.101.74.51 16:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)one_love_greater_than_all

hahahaha, there is proof that he complained to the mayor. In a very nice letter he said what's going on in the park. Journalists filmed the gays in the park, one gay asked the jourrnalist if he could suck him. It was well known that it was frequented by gays. What a denier u r. Go watch the video. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nowhere9 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 7 May 2007.

As we have said, the video itself is not reliable. No names of people being interviewed, hell, no information on who made the video. I could easily fake a video like that about my own town park, it would not make it true. Find us these letters, find us a confirmable, reliable source. This is actually a Wikipedia policy we are enforcing here, not being "deniers". See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more. I also suggest you look at Wikipedia:No personal attacks, as you are really skirting that. --OuroborosCobra 15:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Article protection

Also i would like to add why has Wikipedia Locked this subject, i think you should let people spam this one, let the hater get all the ranting he deserves!!!! Unlock this page!!!!!!

You just answered why it needs to remain locked. --OuroborosCobra 23:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL 204.52.215.107 23:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

why does he need hating? He's making a point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.149.66 (talk • contribs) 00:52, March 29, 2008

Phelps vs. Falwell ... May want to go to full protection

Phelps just announced that WBC will be picketing the Jerry Falwell funeral. The announcement certainly deserves mention in the article, as does possibly Phelps' accusations of 'Arminism' towards certain evangelists including Falwell. However, the likely surge in traffic caused by the incident may cause some problems. 38.119.107.73 20:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't (usually) do preemptive page protections, however if the vandalism gets bad you can request it at WP:RPP. - Koweja 20:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this article unbiased enough?

I think Phelps is an agent_provocateur of the enemy satan to make legitimate Christians look bad.

On the other hand, this article did not seem unbiased. Statements like "By Phelps's own admission, he never dated, and had no interest in members of the opposite sex." Is this relevant? Or only provided to give homosexuals peace of mind, so that they can think of Phelps as just a repressed homosexual? It doesn't seem relevant.

Also, "In 1947, Phelps enrolled as a student at the fundamentalist Bob Jones University" (emphasis added). Is that important? I have significant disagreements with fundamentalists, but I don't see why it's important to characterize the university as fundamentalist here in this article. It doesn't seem unbiased. It seems as though yet another way to sneak a weasel attack against my fundamentalist brothers and sisters.

Honesty in reporting, let the reader decide.-—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Well given that members of Phelp's own Westboro Baptist Church are on here editing, why would you expect it to be easy to keep it unbiased? I see no problem with labelling Bob Jones University as fundamentalist. How else would you describe it? It is suggestive that this is not some normal person who just turned into a lunatic. It also implies that Phelps is just a slightly more extreme version of most fundamentalists, which I believe is quite accurate, given the kinds of statements one hears from Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.--Filll 22:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no doubt that they're editing the article (Hell, one of them added a few comments to an anti-Westboro video I uploaded on YouTube), but just for reference, can you point out what edits you suspect are theirs? --Darkdan 04:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the line "By Phelps's own admission, he never dated, and had no interest in members of the opposite sex" seems a bit biased...this definitely needs a citation. If there is no citation, it should be removed. Ccrashh 17:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Childhood Section - NPOV?

I feel that the childhood section of this article is biased in favour of Phelps. It is littered with unsourced statements that were obviously added by either Phelps himself or someone else who knows him well such as his family/cult members. The information on how his mother used to play piano for the pleasure of the neighbours or how he played cornet in the school band but later switched to bass horn is completely unnecessary and colours the section to sound more like a memoir than a biography. I think this section should be stripped down to include only relevant details about his early life to ensure that the article maintains a neural point-of-view. Eddyy 20:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is becoming a joke

It's my opinion that Phelps is simply TOO controversial a subject on whom to do an exhaustive encyclopedic biography of a living person. I believe that 99% of Wikipedians have their hearts in the right places, but I'm very dismayed at the constant changes in this piece. Nobody knows for sure the motivations of Fred Phelps, yet everyone continues to guess at them. This in turn makes the entire article riddled with POV. I propose stripping this article down to the bare minimum. When Phelps has passed on, historians will be more likely to ascertain his impact on world culture; specifically in the United States. As it stands now, nobody knows whether he is a religious zealot, grandstander, nut-case, or any combination thereof. But people keep on guessing, and I simply don't believe that makes for a very good encyclopedia article. --BadMojoDE 21:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with stripping this article down to bare minimum. He is one of the most controversial figures around today and deserves more detailed coverage. Newell Post 03:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Detailed coverage does not mean the same thing as posting opinions. Documented information or peer-reviewed critique are the key to preventing POV. See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view -Alex.rosenheim 20:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Alex. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news service or a celebrity gossip page. The article should be stripped down to basic facts which meet the standards of encyclopediac sources. This will make it easier to maintain a non point of view perspective. There are hundreds (at least) of other sites only a Google away which can provide juicier bits. TechBear 21:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Aging Fred

Would it be worth mentioning that most of the administration of the church has been taken over by Fred's daughter Shirley? In Louis Theroux's BBC2 documentary just screened, Fred did nothing but read out prewritten diatribe and seemed to have trouble answering how many children he had when asked. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctwo/noise/?id=louis_theroux 219.90.136.45 03:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Only if you can find a reliable source which says that Shirley has taken over day-to-day management of the church. If you have a source for that statement, go for it. Αργυριου (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Upon watching the documentary, I felt that Fred did not have trouble answering how many children he had, but was merely expressing irritation at the question, indicating that anyone who had done basic research would know not only how many children he had, but how many were still in regular contact with Fred. Whether that irritation was justified can only be answered by those who were present during Louis Theroux's stays in Topeka. John Warburton 00:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think (OR/POV) Theroux was trying to establish whether Phelps counted the 4 dissenting children as his, and Phelps saw this and tried to avoid answering either way. In any case, I don't consider that the documentary presented any credible evidence loss of faculties (though that doesn't mean that he's mentally stable).TrulyBlue 08:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Cuba

The section Fred Phelps#Fidel Castro states: "In 2004, when a pro-homosexual Cuban refugee announced plans to travel to Cuba, Phelps sent another letter to Castro "warning" him of the man's plans and requesting travel visas for a group of WBC congregants so that they could follow the refugee around Havana with signs bearing anti-U.S. and anti-homosexual slogans." Were the travel visas granted? And did they go? I believe it would be noteworthy to add such a mention to that section. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know aye. 122.57.34.97 (talk) 09:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Blue Valley North

In 2002 Blue Valley North High School held productions of The Laramie Project play. Westboro members made it known that they were coming to picket the school. To their surprise many students cut class to meet the picketers and a small riot ensued with a few instances of car vandalism. The school later made tickets to the shows "buy ahead" in order to keep Westboro members from interrupting the play. Subsequently Phelps' website started declaring that "God Hates Blue Valley North" and proceeded to picket every year's graduation ceremony following the event.

The first protest was because Blue Valley North allowed some Muslims to use the gym on weekends; there is no mention of this. The second protest was because of the Laramie Project play. During the first protest the students of BVN knocked off a mirror of one of their cars and some people were throwing things at the car’s windshields, but there was barely any damage; I would not consider it a "small riot." There were people screaming at the protestors and girls making out with each other in protest of the anti-gay slogans, but that was about it, not even close to a “riot.” In riots people are usually arrested, but no one was arrested. During the second protest there was no property damage because there was a lot of police, unlike the first time Phelps came, when there were barely any police. Just trying to clarify this statement. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 18:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Legitimacy Section

{{editprotected}}

Just in general, the referenced section does not need to exist. Both main points could simply be incorporated into the "Criticism" section.

My main contention, however, is with the paragraph beginning "[b]ecause his activism has provoked opposition..." and contends the Phelps may be a plant. This caught my attention, because this is the first time that I have ever heard this claim, so I decided to look into the sources, since to me this was a preposterous claim. This paragraph has two citations (69 and 70 on the main page, which I will attempt to reproduce here, though I am not the best with wiki coding. If anyone can link these better, please do so, with my gratitude), which I will address individually. 69 : I would question the using of this citation as the basis for the specific statement that "some speculate that Phelps is a plant aimed at giving the anti-gay movement a bad name." The article in question is hosted on what appears to be a massive news aggregater. This specific article has no author listed, nor any newspaper, magazine, or other primary publication source. The only type of citation it has is a logo for "AFP" which, when clicked, says it itself is a large syndicate of journalists, but still does not state where the article was originally published, nor who wrote it.

Further, this article attributes this statement to "Mark Potok, the director of the intelligence project at the Southern Poverty Law Center which tracks hate crimes. (ibid)" However, the quotes from Mr. Potok do not refer at all to this sentiment, and since there is absolutely no citation for sources in this article, it is not possible other than directly locating and contacting Mr. Potok, to determine if he ever said this, or what his reasoning once.

Since there is no way short of doing an exhaustive search everything Mr. Potok has ever written, or contacting the person directly, to determine the legitimacy of this statement, and considering that this is a living person, I feel this statement should be immediately deleted unless a more concrete citation can be established.

---

70: I'm honestly not sure whether this statement is more, or less obviously inappropriate. The statement itself says that this is the opinion of one author, in a single column. The column is in an online-only newspaper, and is simply an opinion article called "Critic-At-Arms" - in essence indistinguishable from a blog. The second paragraph of the Reliable Sources section in WP:BLP specifically refers to this sort of source, which should never be allowed in this context. Even if this was not a BLP, I would still question whether it would meet the "exceptional claim requires exceptional source" rule in WP:V.

Since this is my first attempt at an edit of anywhere near this scope and potential controversy, I have created an account, which is where I state why I am requesting this edit, to hopefully avoid accusations of POV, sock puppetry, etc. Also, I would appreciate any feedback from other editor or admins on the manner in which I presented my case, and not just the actual content. Specifically, did I do anything wrong myself? Should I have added anything? Left anything out? Thanks. Drake Maijstral 00:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The request looks fine, but this page isn't fully protected so it doesn't need admin help to edit. Any username four days old can edit this article. If no-one contests the removal by then, you should feel free to remove the claims you dispute. If they do contest the removal, you will need to discuss it here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Since there was never any actual opposition to the above, and now that I am able to, I have removed the "Legitimacy" section, moving the statement from his son to the criticism section. I have removed the "plant" allegation completely. Since I have already made my point about whether the sources are even legitimate themselves, I will not repeat it. However, let's assume for the sake of argument that these sources are perfectly legitimate, verifiable, etc. The only wording that I can think of that would correctly fit the two sources are "One person has stated the Mr. Phelp's views and actions are so extreme that it may make people wonder whether he is actually a plant working to create sympathy for the anti-gay cause, and another person has speculated in an opinion column, without any facts to back up his speculation, that Mr. Phelps's organization is funded by NAMBLA." Since each opinion is independent and purely the individual speculation of two people who have no known expertise or special standing regarding the subject, they are no more weighty than the individual opinions of any other person. For this reason alone, even if the claim was true and could be proven, WP:UNDUE specifically states that this statment does not belong: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." Thanks!  Maijstral  18:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced allegations of Child abuse

Should these allegations be restored into the article with caution and not taken as pure fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.8.40 (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2007

Only if there is a reliable source which meets the requirements of Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Argyriou (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, why the hell was the title redacted? I think it's a perfectly legitimate question, it's a strong rumor.

Not sure why it was changed, but I have made a new, more neutral title. --OuroborosCobra 19:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Because we cannot report rumors. Doing so may subject the WMF to a libel suit which it would lose. If you can provide reliable sources for that rumor, then the rumor can be written about. Go and actually read the links in my comment above. Argyriou (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It says biographical material, not his talk page.

Eagle Scout?

This article was just added to Category:Eagle Scouts, but there is no information or citation in the article to back that up. Can someone please provide some evidence? --OuroborosCobra 16:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid I can. I am working a list, fixing categories first, then cites. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh good then :)

I wasn't so much questioning whether Phelps really was an Eagle Scout (my personal feelings on the matter are irrelevant, we are here to state the facts), I just wanted to make sure it was accurate. This is an article where POV claims with no evidence are put forwardby both sides, after all. --OuroborosCobra 16:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand. Anons keep censoring him and a few others from List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America). I'm doing some category housecleaning as there are currently more persons in the categories than on the list, and there were a few on the list who weren't in the cat. I had thought the cite had already been placed in this article back when we verified him. I think there are multiple news articles that reference Eagle Scout and we just used the one. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Childhood section completely unsourced

Ridiculously so, in my opinion. I'm going to dump it; if sources are available, please feel free to revert and cite them. Cap'n Walker 16:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Category removed

Category:Homophobia was removed.[5] How is having homophia as a category in violation of WP:BLP? Can you be more specific, as I see no violation. Thank you. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 01:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"Homophobia" as used in this context is obviously an attempt to label Phelps as a homophobe. Now, we as Wikipedians do not know if Phelps is a homophobe as such we can't just decide to slap that on the article (and only articles where the person has a conservative agenda). [Why hasn't the word been slapped on the articles of homophobes with liberal agendas, e.g, Al Gore?] It is violates the principal of no Wikipedian commentary and since she is a living person is violates BLP. Where is the third party source? There isn't one, just the opinion of a Wikipedian. Now, she might just be a homophobe. I don't know, but neither did the Wikipedian who put her name in that category. How do we know what is in Phelps's heart? [If I had to guess I would be willing to bet that Phelps is a hardcore, hatred-filled homophobe, but my opinion does not matter, that is the not the standard to be used in Wikipedia.] I don't claim that I know. Would you find it not a violation of BLP if I created a category called "Racists" and then put former KKK member and Democratic Senator Robert Byrd in the category? Of course, it would be a violation of BLP.--Getaway 13:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, this discussion is also going on at the Anita Bryant article. Why can't this discussion be limited to one place??? Christopher Mann McKay?--Getaway 13:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand the general point of this thread. To my knowledge, he has never publicly said the specific words "I am an avowed, card-carrying homophobe. I’m proud of it and I would be honored for Wikipedia to label me as such.” However, he has said almost everything short of that. His statements and actions demonstrate the most clear case of homophobia imaginable. If we can’t use an obvious description like this, we might as well just re-name Wikipedia the “Page of links and direct quotations.”
Here’s another thing Wikipedians aren’t supposed to do, but here goes. Delete this whole comment if you want to…. Until recently I lived near Topeka and I have personally seen Fred and his church in action several times. They are the most extreme, bizarre group I can imagine. If necessary, we could footnote almost every sentence of this article from entries in the Topeka and Lawrence newspapers and other sources. But Fred & WBC deserves more than a perfunctory entry. Newell Post 15:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Getaway, I posted the same question on two articles because I didn't know if other editors on the Anita Bryant article would like to offer their input, as you removed 'Category:Homophobia' from that article also.

"Homophobia – irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"[6]. It is evident Fred Phelps discriminates and advocates discrimination against homosexuals; it is not an opinion. The category factually represents Fred Phelps and I can't see how it is in any way a violation of BLP. I think the category should be restored because it is not "Wikipedian commentary," but a know fact, supported by third-party sources: [7][8][9][10] [11][12][13]. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 01:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Christopher, you have given a ton of examples of why anyone with half a brain can see that Phelps is a homophobe. However, that is NOT the question. As I pointed out before and I am repeating here, it is clear that he is, but categories in Wikipedia are NOT to be used by Wikipedians to express their opinion. All of the references that you cite can be worked into the article and they make your point. Yes, without all of the context of citation and reference the use of the category by itself out of context IS a violation of BLP. I noticed that you did not speak to the examples that I gave you. In one I pointed out that Robert Byrd was a member of the KKK and we all know that members of the KKK are racist so why don't we just create a category called racists and put Byrd in that category? You ignored that analogy because it is easier, obviously, just to list a bunch of examples of how Phelps is a homophobe, instead of explaining why using the racist category is bad but using the homophobe category is not. Once again, the point is not whether Phelps is a homophobe, he probably is. And if you want to work your extensive list into the article--as long as it is done in way that does not violate any of the Wikipedia rules--then I state go ahead, but those examples do not provide the basis for using a category which by definition has no context to your express your personal opinion about Phelps.--Getaway 02:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to speak up and voice my opinion: According to the BLP subheading on categories, "the case for the inclusion of a category must be made clear by the article text", and caution must be exercised in the use of a category that might be considered unpopular. However, I think that with some of the statements cited above (both from Phelps himself and gobs of reliable authors discussing him), the case for Phelps being a demonstrable and self-identified homophobe is unquestionably made, which fulfills the first criterion for addition of the category. The second one is fulfilled as well- the only reason Fred Phelps is discussed in public discourse at all is because of his campaigning against gay groups and those that disagree with him. I do not see how the sources provided by Christopher McKay go far beyond the standard outlined at BLP for categories.

As far as your mentioning of Robert Byrd- it stands to reason that because he was in the KKK, that he was a racist. If there's the depth and breadth of information on his racism that there is on Phelps' homophobia, it would be perfectly reasonable even under BLP standards to include a category on it on his article. The issue is, though, there is just not that much documented stuff about him- to the best of my knowledge, Byrd doesn't run a website to the effect of "GODHATES(racial pejorative).COM". It's not a perfect parallel, you see, because of the amount of scrutiny that each has been subjected to and the amound of reliable reporting done. --ForbiddenWord 13:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I don't doubt the homophobia displayed by Phelps, once again, I repeat, that is not the issue. The issue is whether BLP allows us Wikipedian to label and it doesn't. BLP allows us quote third parties and as I pointed out above Christopher has provided tons of examples of where "so and so" called Phelps "this and that" and all of that information is encyclopedic. However, using the categories by Wikipedians to call names is not kosher with BLP, no matter how bad we might want to do it. It would not be appropriate to call Byrd a racist in the category section and it is not appropriate to call Phelps a homophobe in the category section. (By the way, the category is "homophobia" it is NOT "homophobe" and Phelps even for all of the things he is, is NOT a "homophobia".) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Getaway (talk • contribs) 07:22, 14 August 2007.

That is not the case: the BLP subheading on categories says that unpopular labels that fulfill these two criteria may be used even if the category is not considered positive:

1. That the subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question;
2. And that the subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevent to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

The BLP guidelines do not prohibit the addition of any information that could be construed as negative, rather they are a safeguard to prevent Wikipedia from being used to defame people. The above two criteria are very solidly met with the links Mr. McKay provided- the ones I looked at were all from sources with editorial staff, and thus reliable. I do not see how the section of WP:BLP conflicts with the use of this category tag- please show me. To your last point, the category "homophobia" is appropriate, because it contains articles relating to the subject of homophobia, just as the article Great Depression is in the category "1930s", because the Great Depression is a subject pertinent to the 1930s. --ForbiddenWord 15:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Getaway, I’m still not convinced, as I still see no BLP or other policy violation. Using Category:Homophobia is not to "call names," but is to describe Phelps is involved in the issue of homophobia. Your reasoning: "homophobia" it is NOT "homophobe" and Phelps even for all of the things he is, is NOT a "homophobia" is not logical, as that would mean half of the articles in Category:Homophobia should be removed, as well as half the articles in Category:Antisemitism, and other similar categories. Some people view homophobia as something negative, while others don’t view it as negative; however, it does not matter how people interpret the category because it is a neutral term that does not state Phelps supports or opposes, but rather states he his involved in the issue of homophobia. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 15:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Fred Phelps children, very small mention?

There is extensive information on this at http://www.plattsburghforpeace.com/familytree.htm , I'm not quite sure how to add this, but it seems there should be more of a mention of his estranged children what happened etc —The comment was added by Michael324324 (talk • contribs).

10.9 Million Dollar Lawsuit

On Oct. 31, 2007 Phelps' church ordered to pay 10.9 million, many times more than actual value of church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.182.36 (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Christian responses

In one of the discussions above, Rick Boatright wrote, "There is a request to cite that gay rights groups and christian denominations have denounced him. How many would you like? A google search turned up 30 or 40 I could have cited on the FIRST PAGE. (That is, original denouncements, not just journalisitc citations of the denouncements....)"

I don't think it would be noteworthy to cite the gay rights groups' denunciations, since it is pretty obvious that they'll have no use for Phelps and his cult. However, since Phelps claims to be Christian, I do think it would be worthwhile to have a list of Christian responses/denunciations in the article.

I doubt that any legitimate Church or denomination in America considers Phelps and his so-called church to be a real Christian church. For example, Phelps calls himself a "Primitive Baptist," but the Christian Action League of North Carolina press release[14] on Phelps quotes a real Primitive Baptist pastor saying, "That's certainly not an orderly Primitive Baptist...."

What does everyone else think? Should a list of Christian responses like that one be added to the article? NCdave 05:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems relevant to me to have a section on differing theologies (Christian or otherwise). Anthony Krupp 13:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What? How is Mr. Phelps, "anti-Irish" as an preacher...

Will anyone please verify all of this alleged stuff from the Kansas preacher on the article, and why is Phelp's name on the Criticism of Bill O'Reilly page? His detractors thought he was lying about Phelps, or the governor of Kansas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.160.189.89 (talk) 03:53, November 12, 2007 It appears to be sourced - check the references. (I presume you're talking about the 'God Hates Ireland' stuff. No more bongos 04:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

And who is Bill O'Reilly???

Removal of links

I removed the links to Fred Phelp's websites because they are not suitable for references, nor are they neutral. They are all attack sites and contribute nothing to the article and would only serve to further his /their vanity. Bottom line, they don't belong in this article. While I agree, we all have freedom of speech and even Mr. Phelps desrves his, we don't need the links to his websites. I'd say the same thing if an article for the Klan was here and a link to their site was present. Both are hate sites and serve only one purpose, to disparage their subject.

• Bottom line, they're not encyclopedic, not useable as reference, not neutral,

cannot be used as a verifiable reference, used only to disparage their subjects and about as useful as placing someone's blog as a link. That being said if consensus states that they belong in, I'll leave it alone. Thanks ! KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 22:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed, these links have no business being cited from a Wikipedia article. Newtman 22:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

They may be attack sites as you see them (and as I see them), but you appear to be citing a misinterpretation of a rejected policy. Wikipedia:Attack sites has nothing whatsoever to do with sites that are generally unpleasant and bigoted and attack groups of people. The (rejected) policy is: "websites outside Wikipedia that are used to facilitate, promote, or encourage the harassment of individual Wikipedia editors". This is certainly not relevant here.

Including these websites is specifically encouraged per Wikipedia:External Links#What to link: "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any". These sites are also an invaluable resource and provide context for the reader. In any case, it is surely a mistake to censor these links - better to let the reader click through to them and leave Phelps hoist by his own petard. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a good reference point here.

If you can find a policy that supports censorship of links such as these, please do bring it to my attention. I will revert one more time, but will leave it to others after that. No more bongos 22:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with No more bongos. The sites are in no sense attack sites per the linked policy- they are admittedly very unpleasent links, but I think that they serve to illustrate the article and the behavior of the article's subject. There's certainly no policy against providing material pertinent to the article's subject. --ForbiddenWord 14:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External_links under "Links normally to be avoided": Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. I think a hate speech site that makes ridiculous libelous statements falls into that category. Newtman 18:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Except that these links point to sites that Phelps and the WBC run. As such, they accurately reflect why Phelps is a notable figure, and thus they are properly presented in the article. That they are hate-filled and bigoted is ultimately irrelevant. TechBear 18:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict 2X) This really isn't the point. That guideline seems more apt and useful for sourcing purposes where the material is of dubious veracity - i.e. stopping people using hoax articles to source hoax material on WP. We're not using Phelps' sites(or any of his other material) to say that "god" does "hate fags", or anything of the sort. What we're doing is saying that "These are this man's opinions, and here is his website, from which a substantial amount of his notability derives". Linking to his site isn't supporting the position that he takes, it is merely providing the reader with the information required to draw their own conclusions. Surely it's better for the reader to see what this man writes and how ridiculous it is for themself?

Most of all, though, without these links the article lacks important context, and contextual usefulness is a common-sense criteria when judging whether to include a link or not. No more bongos 18:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how his personal sites reflect why he's notable any more than this wiki article or links to news articles about him. They are merely soap boxes for him to preach his hate from, I don't see what they add to the article, other than giving him more link love.Newtman 18:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

So that our private conversation becomes part of the record for this article....

You express concern about the Wikipedia:External_links guidelines. Those guidelines would apply if the links were being used within an External Links section, ie as back-up resources which could be used to reference the article but which are not. That is not how the links are being included within the Fred Phelps article: rather than as references, citations or other resources, the links are included as part of the bio box, as examples of the views and positions which have made Phelps notable enough to have an article in the Wikipedia. As such, they do not violate the external links guidelines. TechBear 18:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Dunno what you mean by 'link love', if it's search engine rankings you're worried about, wikipedia external links don't affect these. It's not about love, though, it's about censorship - "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it". I think the man is abhorrent and an imbecile. I can't let this affect how I edit the article, though. Removing the link would be, for example, like removing the link to Al Gore's home page because you didn't believe in global warming. No more bongos 18:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As TechBear rightfully pointed out, these aren't even external links, they're bio links, and as such a fair argument could be made that they should stay, and I have no problems with that. As far as your censorship claim goes, I agree that freedom of speech should be defended to the end, but after working for what is arguably one of the largest news forum sites in the world and seeing how absolutely horrible some of our users are, I also believe in the point that freedom of speech needs to be balanced by not tolerating bullies and bigots. Newtman 18:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I thought it was assumed they were bio links anyway since they were in the biobox - misunderstood you and thought you were trying to excise the biolinks purely on the grounds that you thought there should be no links from WP to that site at all. Still, I'd probably defend their existence in the section at the bottom if they were there, purely for illustrative purposes. Nice to see this seems to be getting sorted out without any serious warring :) No more bongos 18:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

State Laws Banning Military Protests

A user mentioned that several states have created and/or passed their own laws banning protests of military funerals near the end of the article. Could you please give citations for these so we can actually read the text of the legislation? Thank you. TimothyOnline 0748, 13 November 2007 (UTC -6) —Preceding comment was added at 13:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That section already has citations for all of the named states that have passed laws to that effect. Is there something I overlooked? --ForbiddenWord 15:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

External links

The site linked under "Defenses of Phelps" is a defense of the principle of free speech, not of Phelps's views. 217.155.20.163 (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Protesting Heath Ledger's funeral

http://www.kbsd6.com/Global/story.asp?S=7763918

I think this can be incorporated into the article. --72.39.61.47 (talk) 14:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

yeah, we should also be prepaired for massive vandalism and such when (not if) he breaks Australia's anti-discrimination laws (assuming we even let him pass through customs, as letting someone through whoes intention is known that it will be to to break a law is pretty stupid) and gets into some serious trouble. So I suggest it may be wise to semi protect this article, and if they exist, articles relating to Australia's anti-discrimination laws. I dont think it will neccessarily be fred and his members vandalising, but I have seen that when laws such as Australia's law that go against the US ideal of free speach come up in the news, there tends to be a reaction of people thinking that we are going down a slippery slope. Sorry if this did not make much sense. In a nutshell, we may need to semi protect this article and some Australian law related articles in the near future. --02:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Alphamone (talk)

What a dickhead! I'm tempted to vandalise it myself, so semi-protection is probably a good idea. He was just on A Current Affair here claiming that Australia is the land of Sodom, is that enough to add Australia to his Most Hated list?Ticklemygrits (talk) 07:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Would he dare show his face in Australia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.7.99 (talk) 08:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm from Topeka, KS and I work at a news station where he unfortunately visted the other night to spar with a news station in Sydney...here's the link..<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AMdpfjSyW_8&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AMdpfjSyW_8&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object> Please keep in mind that most all of Kansas can't stand this guy and we're not all like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.4.220 (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

They're not coming anymore, apparently Heath's family won't tell them where the funeral is *shock*. They've got a press release on one of their sites begging his family to tell them where his funeral, as Heath would have ( according to their PR) wanted them to come and bother his family and friends in their moment of grief.Ticklemygrits (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Democratic Party Membership

The Democratic Party haven´t tried to expel him yet ? He´s more stupid then stupidity itself and makes almost all extremists look like decent.85.242.236.48 (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they have the option of "expelling" him. If I register as a democrat, I am a member of that party, and they don't really have an option to remove me. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Really ? I didn´t knew that ! Your country politics is really very different from in Europe. In Portugal, any of the main five political parties, can and sometimes certainly expels members, for several reasons.85.240.18.135 (talk) 03:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

In the United States, individuals self-align with a political party, usually through voter registration. People involved directly with the party such as caucus-members, party leaders, etc. can be expelled from their positions, but a party cannot force the unregistration of an individual. Likewise, a party cannot force a person holding elected office to resign as the office-holder holds office at the will of the people, not at the will of the party. So yes, things are bit different here than in Europe. TechBear (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Depending on the local laws, a person may even get a nomination in the name of a political party, even if the leadership and much of the membership of it has repudiated him/her, due to open primary laws and the like. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Frederick?

Is there any source that shows that his legal name or birth name is "Frederick"? 76.177.69.127 (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

fred= right wing?

Can I mention that Fred Phelps is right wing extremist? All the activities he was doing is usually what a right wing pereson do (bashing homosexuals and minorities and such?).--Dark paladin x (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If you can document it with direct references without violating the No Original Research or Synthesis policies, feel free. TechBear (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I also don't think it fits. He is also massively anti-military, which stereotypically is a left wing ideal (I say stereotypically because the basis in fact isn't really there). He fits some stereotypes for right, some for left, but in general is just an extremist of his own breed. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

He's a Democrat. Also, the left is anti-military. 68.84.224.36 (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

1) He has run in Democratic primaries; not necessarily the same thing. 2) Please maintain a civil tone and respect varying POVs, as Ouroboros did. There have been some extremely military leftists in the past, and some anti-military conservatives. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

He is so removed from reality that I don't believe left or right politics can really be applied to him or his cult, I have met several actual Nazi's and nothing they said was anywhere near as intense and extreme as Fag Phelps-Ted Fox 09:37, 23 June 2008 (GMT)

Are we sure that this guy is really a Dem? Except for the anti-military comments, he seems to align himself with almost all the stereotypical right-wing view points, albeit to the extreme. Has anyone ever considered that his attempts at running as a Democrat was a subversive tactic; Trying to sabotage the party from the inside, that sort of thing? Just throwing out theories here; because his membership in the party doesn't make any sense to me, at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary Larade (talk • contribs) 21:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that he's a Dem because he's an old white man from Mississippi, and that's how old white people from the South used to always vote (tradition, you know), but then again, Phelps made his fortune by representing mostly African-Americans in civil rights cases during the '50s and '60s, so there goes the "Dixiecrat" theory, he must only make sense from the "inside" (of his mind & church). (Also: there have been plenty of conservative Democrats over the years, just look at Larry McDonald and Lyndon LaRouche [not even counting Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, and Jesse Helms before they switched over], but neigh few liberal Republicans. My point in sharing this is that the Democrats are by far the more open and inclusive of the two parties (they'll let just about anybody in; you can be for or against anything and believe in anything and still be a Dem), and that the United States is so conservative that even the more liberal of our two major parties can have some pretty extremist conservatives in it, but the Republican party can and does kick people out for not being conservative enough, or in some cases, for actually being too conservative (or for being on the wrong side of certain neocon litmus-test issues, such as isolationism vs. foreign interventionism, Anti-Zionism vs. pro-Israel, John Birch Society vs. NATO/UN, protectionism vs. NAFTA/WTO, etc. And yes, some conservatives (e.g. extreme isolationists) are anti-war, anti-military; some are even pacifists because they are conservatives).--173.16.124.196 (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sane?

Is there any information or speculation regarding his sanity, because I'm not a qualified psychiatrist but the guy is clearly a socially functioning loon. So strange that such an aspect of someones insanity finds aceptabillity within a group so estranged from all rational thought. How can a person be commited for preaching about something like a pink elephant riding on the back of a mouse as a religion and this individual remains free in regard to the first amendment? Society has such a long way to go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OoohOoohAaah (talk • contribs) 01:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

He is clearly not sound in mind, Adolf Hitler appears rational and rather intelligent in comparison, His intense and burning hatred for anything and anyone outside of his cult probably proves that he is completely irrational, deluded and downright nuts, He gives Christians a bad name (I don't really believe that he is one since he perverts the message of the Bible to the extent that it resembles some sort of hate filled doctrine of evil, In the same way some Muslims pervert the message of the Koran) he is not capable of rational thought in any sense of the word, When he dies (Preferably painfully, Hopefully in a similar manner to Arnold Toht) he's heading for hell, and I hope the rest of his cult are abused by protesters who were targeted by Phelps at his funeral-Ted Fox 09:25, 23 June 2008 (GMT)

Everyone "perverts" the message of the Bible - that's because there are many, many messages in the Bible, often conflicting. Fred Phelps, just like anyone else, reads whatever he wants into it. If you were to follow the Bible to the word, you'd be schizophrenic because you'd constantly be contradicting yourself. It's just cobbled together from many different texts and generally is a mess. But that's neither here nor there..24.86.196.52 (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say at least... negative attention-seeking clinical narcissism and paranoia. Totally unencyclopedic, but fasinating. I also think he uses the intense hatred that they get back from everyone because of their horrid behavior to hold his cult/family members in the fold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.234.100.88 (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Documentation of WHY Phelps feels as he does

Is there any source (on the Net or not) that gives any explanation as to WHY Phelps is so fixated on homosexuality as the foundation of his church? Was he raped? Was he in love with a woman who turned out to be a lesbian? Does he have a psychological aversion to musical theater? All kidding aside, it is one thing to be homophobic- it is quite another to be so obsessed with the issue of homosexuality that you attribute it to every possible evil imaginable. Are there any sources that we could incorporate that provide any explanation of his his pathology? 206.218.218.57 (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The documentary talks about Fred being a violent rage-a-holic father, but doesn't go much further than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jstohler (talk • contribs) 03:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd attribute it to him suppressing his own homosexual desires. Bagofants (talk) 02:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the financial angle needs to be greatly expanded in this article. There is one reference to the point that Phelps at one point could make a profit by taunting people into attacking him, but now clearly there should be more money flowing in from media appearances. If people could unite to boycott any news outlet covering him, e.g. Current Affair mentioned here, unless it swore on a stack of bibles that they gave no money to anyone in any way connected with him... maybe he'd crumple up and blow away. Wnt (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the "Hatemongers" movie explains it pretty well. Specifically, parts 3 and 4 from this page. I tried to explain this motivation in the first paragraph of this section. This isn't necessarily the real reason behind the Westboro's beliefs, but it is at least what they claim to be the starting motivation. herorev (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)