Talk:Fred Phelps/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Childhood

Why is there nothing on his childhood? It could explain his views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.209.139 (talk • contribs) 07:02, March 5, 2008

This edit from 2006 contains much more information about his childhood. Much of it seems to be taken from this, a lawsuit filed in 1994. --DearPrudence (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the mention of Bob Jones University

I would like to second an earlier request to remove the "fundamentalist" description from Bob Jones University. It does nothing to contribute to the article and in fact seems a bit biased, implying that Phelps received his current ideology from association with that college. Neither of the other two colleges he attended have any sort of adjective used to describe them. Bob Jones does not need one. CorrTerek (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see Bob Jones University. --Veritas (talk) 05:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed "Fundamentalist"

I have removed the "fundamentalist" reference from Bob Jones University. The other two colleges Phelps attended are not given any sort of description. "Fundamentalist" has a negative connotation in many circles and could be unfairly misconstrued as hinting that Phelps and BJU are somehow connected. While I'm aware there is a note stating that Phelps has denied all connections with BJU, not everyone reads the notes.

To quote a fellow Wikipedian who was in favor of the original wording: "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."

Unless I am gravely mistaken, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to "suggest" or "imply". I would appreciate it if the edit was allowed to stand as is. CorrTerek (talk) 05:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue of the university being fundamentalist is a fact, not an implication - its status is included because it provides context to the biographical substance of the article's subject. See the Bob Jones University article which also categorizes the university as such. --Veritas (talk) 05:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What context does it provide? It would seem to me that enough context is provided by naming the university without adding any extra adjectives. CorrTerek (talk) 05:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

He has a friend, in Brazil

This crook has friends in Brazil.If you don't believe, see these sites, both in portuguese:

http://www.cpr.org.br/biografia.htm and http://www.cpr.org.br/fabricantes-virus.htm Agre22 (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)agre22

George Carlin is in Hell

I really, really think that there should be a mention about his whole "George Carlin is in Hell" rant. I won't add one, because I'm not a Wikipedian (though I've done my fair share of editing,) and because I couldn't be impartial. 24.74.90.172 (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I really, really, really, really, really agree whit you because that stupid video is nothing more that a bunch of hate for a man who in the worst of the cases was a nasty comedian and in the best one of the voices of liberal thinking and comedy. So pleace talk about this men denigrate a good man memory trought a video. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.157.143.32 (talk) 07:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Note

In my most recent edit I am requesting a citation for this. Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Another Note

What IF the Phelps dude is correct in his beliefs? Not that I believe the dude BUT... there's nobody I know of in direct communication with an invisible, unprovable god-head creator-type being commonly referred to as God or other terms so... as I mumbled; what IF Phelps is correct? Eeeeeek!!!!!!!!! 24.206.248.102 (talk) 16:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant to this article. TechBear (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Adding of "homophobic"?

Someone want to comment on this edit? I don't think it belongs; it's WP:SYNthesis of materials, WP:OR, and somewhat defamatory. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll comment. While it might not be encyclopedic to mention that Fred Phelps is a bitter, graying, old man, it can nonetheless be observed with the naked eye. You may not be able to track down any news agency or magazine article that has mentioned these qualities Mr. Phelps has, but you would not be presenting false or dubious information if you mentioned it. Mr. Phelps happens to exhibit the characteristics of a homophobic person. He may, in fact, be the best human display of homophobia. The question is not whether or not Fred Phelps is homophobic. Plain and simple: he is. The question is whether or not it is defamatory to categorize him thus. Swamilive (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I don't think anyone would question that he's homophobic. The edit, as is, is original research though. It needs to be sourced at least once, especially on something potentially controversy. Per WP:LIBEL - "It is Wikipedia policy to delete libellous material when it has been identified" - I think it needs to go. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This is at Frank Pais (talk · contribs), who keeps adding "homophobic" to the lead. Two well-established users - myself and SWik78 - have removed it. Even though you can source its addition, it's still WP:LIBELous. Please stop adding it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's libel, as it's a widely held view of Phelps, based on his actions and words, and is easily sourced. But, I still don't think we should use the word "homophobic" in the lead, as it isn't a sufficiently precise term. It's used to mean different things, such as fear of homosexuality, hatred of homosexuals, and moral disapproval of homosexual acts; which aren't all the same thing. It's often used to describe people who insist they don't hate gays (and wish to "cure" or "save" them). Phelps sets himself apart from most by openly hating homosexual people (not just "sins") and wishing death on them. I think we can and do, make clear what Phelps thinks of homosexuals, without using the term "homophobic" in the lead. --Rob (talk) 05:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right. The rest of the introduction paragraph gives more than enough examples of his views, leading the reader to come to whatever conclusions he or she wants. We don't need to explicitly state it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a "well-established" user myself. Referring to someone as "homophobic" is no more libelous or ambiguous than referring to Fulgencio Batista as a dictator (which he was). Although it may be unflattering, some things are simply true. The world is not always a cheery place, and as other editors have noted, Phelps is perhaps the definitive example of what "homophobic" is. I can provide many more references if need be. Many people who may come across the Phelps entry may be unsure about what homophobia is. The hypherlink provided draws them to additional supportive information through the homophobia entry. In fact, I'm actually chuckling a bit right now, as I just looked at the homophobia entry for the first time and there are two picture of the WBC members there (one of Phelps himself). Need it be any more obvious that than? Frank Pais (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I reckon I stand behind Frank Pais. Fred Phelps would NEVER stand behind or in front of Frank Pais, as he is homophobic. Swamilive (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not That word, even if it would appear to be true, is purely a violation of neutral point-of-view policies, as well as original research.--Winger84 (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree. For one, sources have been put for the claim, therefore it is not OR. For another, NPOV doesn't mean ignoring facts because they are unflattering. Would you have Hitler not called an anti-semite by that policy? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What sources? Homophobic is still an adjective, and one that could easily be disputed, at that. To use your example of Adolf Hitler, yes, it is generally accepted that he was an anti-Semite, but it is still a phrase that could be challenged. Common sense would intervene, but it would still be something that could be challenged. In the same sense, referring to Fred Phelps as a homophobe / homophobic is up to the interpretation of the person using the word and - as such - has no place in the lead of the article. I'm not against it being elsewhere (perhaps listed as a criticism), but a lead should remain as neutral as possible, as we are an encyclopedia, not an opinion-based blog. --Winger84 (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to say common sense applies just as much to this article as it does to Hitler. I don't see the difference, quite frankly. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

may need a look-over

"Two of his sons, Mark and Nate, insist that the church is actually a carefully planned cult that allows Phelps to see himself as a demigod, wielding absolute control over the lives of his family and congregants, essentially turning them into slaves that he can use for the sole purpose of gratifying his every whim and acting as the structure for his delusion that he is the only righteous man on Earth." Is there anyway somebody can reword this section in the Religious Beliefs section to make it less long-winded and more dispassionate? Even though I kind of agree with it, it doesn't sound like something you should find in an encyclopedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.56.5.180 (talk) 02:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

anti-homosexual

I tried "anti-homosexual", and hope people can accept it. My only problem with "homophobic" is its ambiguous in meaning. "Homophobic" for some, is a phobia. Virtually every source cited in this article mentions his hatred of homosexuals, so I think defamation isn't a worry, whichever term we use. --Rob (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the change is fine. This clearly belongs in the lede; it's the reason he's famous, it seems to be the prime tenet of his faith, and it's the basis of his "career". - Nunh-huh 22:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with above. IronDuke 22:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. In order to remain encyclopedic and to maintain neutral point-of-view, it can not be in the lead (although I agree with the phrase being used to describe him, overall). However, if someone wants to place it elsewhere, I have no problem with that. For reference, see WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:BLP, all of which - I believe - support my actions in this regard. --Winger84 (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(OUTDENTED FOR VISIBILITY) I have requested temporary full-protection of the article in order for us to reach a consensus here so that none of us get hit with 3RR blocks. --Winger84 (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the way to do that is not to revert on the basis of your lone opinion. Simply enumerating a laundry list of policies, by the way—policies with which we are all already familiar—and not delineating the actual logic which leads you to conclude that they somehow prevent us from including Phelps's claim to fame in the lede is not going to persuade anyone. - Nunh-huh 23:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

BLP states "Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious.

OR states "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source."

NPOV states "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias."

Calling Fred Phelps "homophobic" or "anti-homosexual" utilizes two "contentious" terms. Therefore, BLP is violated if those phrases are used. Those phrases are also violations of OR because - even when sourced to a reliable publication - somebody had to make a decision that those phrases applied to Fred Phelps, prior to publishing them... which still leads to the word "contentious." I don't think I even have to explain why NPOV is violated.. --Winger84 (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You have violated 3rr, if I count correctly. I have reverted, and won't report you, but please don't revert again. IronDuke 23:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, you are misinterpreting BLP. Nowhere does it say contentious edits must not be included, merely that they be sourced. This characterization is not at all difficult to source -- it is therefore not contentious. As an example: can you find any source that denies Phelps is anti-gay? Any source at all? IronDuke 23:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"Homophobic" is not under discussion. Only "antihomosexual" is. And Phelps himself proclaims that he is anti-homosexual: he owns several websites for the express purpose of publicizing that fact. It is not in the least contentious. Your understanding of BLP is flawed if you think it means we can't say something about Phelps that he already says about himself! - Nunh-huh 23:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The three biggest pillars of Wikipedia, when relating to people as subjects, are BLP, OR, and NPOV. Those three policies must be followed at all times. Even if generally accepted as accurate (as I have already agreed to be the case), the phrases "homophobic" and "anti-homosexual" do not belong in the lead of an encyclopedia article. Period. --Winger84 (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, you've already stated your opinion that it doesn't belong in the lede, but the prevailing opinion seems to be that "antihomosexual" does belong there. Please stop with the straw-man "homophobic" argument; that word is not under discussion. Using the word "anti-homosexual" in the lede of the Fred Phelps article is perfectly in accord with WP policies on biographies of living persons, original research, and NPOV. In fact, to avoid using it would probably violate NPOV. - Nunh-huh 23:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You have no support for this position other than your own novel interpretation of those policies. Please stop reverting: I believe you are doing so in good faith, but you will likely be blocked if you do not stop. IronDuke 23:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

←Per WP:BLP, anything controversial must be sourced, so these [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15559], [1], [2], and [3] would seem to show that reliable sources has described both him and his organisation as anti-homosexual. I think these sources also clear up the WP:OR issue. As to WP:NPOV, it seems to me that his attitude to homosexuals is the basis for his notability. Kevin (talk) 00:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I don't like the guy any more than the next person, coming from a very pro-military family and having many homosexual friends, but in regard to the purity of the project, those phrases do not belong in the lead of the article. The lead should simply establish who he is with factual information and leave other sections of the article to discuss his apparent homophobia and his anti-homosexual stance. That has been the basis of my entire issue with this article thus far, not the use of those phrases to describe him, the fact that they're in the lead of the article. --Winger84 (talk) 00:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Which bit do you disagree with? Is it the WP:BLP, WP:OR and WP:NPOV issues, or that it does not belong in the lead? - Kevin (talk)

A lede is the "brief, sharp statement of the story's essential facts". Thus "Fred Phelps is an anti-gay minister known for disrupting funerals" is pretty much what is called for. If the lede needs to be shortened, it could lose the "Phelps Chartered law firm" and the list of "fag-enablers", neither of which are an "essential fact". - Nunh-huh 00:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I've gotta throw a few words in here. I know this has been brought up before, but I think it got overlooked. We're all debating whether or not to mention the qualities of being homophobic or anti-homosexual in the lead paragraph. I can agree that "homophobic" might be misleading, as there's no evidence I can cite that proves he's actually AFRAID of gay people. However, there is mountains of evidence that he is against gays in general, the gay movement, the gay agenda, whatever. Let's face facts (not opinions, not passive observations, but facts). The man hasn't walked a step, spoken a word, inhaled or exhaled in the course of recorded history without firing off some quip about how homosexuals are damning the world and what have you. I think "anti-homosexual" is perfectly fitting in the lead paragraph. User:IronDuke had a very good point when he (or she) wrote if someone is famous for something that many consider a negative attribute, we still have to indicate that. NPOV =/= hagiography. An example of this (and this is what I mean by this being brought up before) is the article for Adolf Hitler. The same condition applies here. Inarguably, he is "famous for something that many consider a negative attribute". The majority of people probably don't hold the guy to very high standards for his involvement with the Nazi party. Yet, this bit of information is listed in the lead sentence of his article. Being the most prominent Nazi in history is definitely considered BAD by the majority of people. Also, being the most prominent anti-homosexual in the world carries a mostly BAD vibe to it. So, why can we list Hitler's Nazism but not Phelps' anti-homosexualism(/ity/ness)? And, please don't simply direct me to NPOV. I think we've all read over that policy and are trying to come to some middleground that doesn't violate it, but also doesn't treat it like the Bible. Am I talking to a wall, or can some of you grasp this? Swamilive (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there seems to be nearly unanimous agreement with you. - Nunh-huh 01:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree to the inclusion of "anti-homosexual," if others feel that it is necessary for the lead. Personally, since it is very well documented later in the article, I do not feel that it's necessary to have it in the lead, in order to remain neutral in POV. I agree with your reasoning, Swamilive, in regard to "homophobic." --Winger84 (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• To be honest, there are so many references calling him a bigot, with even senior Catholics calling him on this [4], that we can probably source the statement that he is widely considered a bigot. He hates far more than just gays, after all. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Anti-homosexuality is the defining hatred. Whenever he's asked about his hatred of other groups, he almost always explains the reason he hates them is their supposed "enabling" of homosexuals. For instance he claims god kills U.S. soldiers for America's "sin" of allowing homosexuality. He doesn't actually claim there's something wrong with being a soldier per se. I object to replacement "anti-homosexual" with extremist". "Extremist" is an overly broad word, which can apply to people ranging from from Hitler to Gandi. The word "bigot" while often applies to Phelps, simply lacks a clear definition. "Anti-homosexual" is a term with a much clearer meaning and useage, even by people on polar opposite sides. --Rob (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec)I think if you asked the guy himself if he was anti-homosexual (or any other related concept) he would pound on the desk with damn right I am or something similar. To be fair though, that ref does not mention Phelps except in the readers comments. Kevin (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Mysterious Disappearance of Daughter-In-Law

I seem to remember something in this article a few years ago about his daughter-in-law disappearing and he being suspected of her murder... And this being one of the reasons that one of his sons disowned him or something... Am I imagining that or did that used to be in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faethon Ghost (talk • contribs) 19:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I found it. It seems like this version of the article has much more information about Phelps' younger days: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Phelps&oldid=55054797#Childhood Faethon Ghost (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It is very odd that wikipedia has taken this, and some of the other, rather incriminating stuff, about Fred Phelps down. The woman's name was Debbie Valgos, and allegedly he had OD'd her on drugs. Heroin maybe? It sounds pretty true. Another disturbing thing you might want to ask yourself is... how does freddie boy pay for all this stuff, hmmm? I mean travelling around the country, around the world even, with no sustainable means of income? Running those websites. Pretty suspicious if you ask me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.224.20 (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Pastor Fred's Health

He's getting on a bit.. and he doesn't look too good either (well to be honest he never has). Has anybody found anything noteworthy relating to his health or any other aspects of his personal life (to be perfectly honest I just want to hear he's not keeping too good!), thanks, --Jkaharper (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

He'll probably be dead in a few years (hopefully), but insane hatred can keep people going for a long time. 72.183.9.129 (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that what the Emperor said to Luke in Star Wars VI - "Hate makes you strong"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

When a bad one goes, a good one could go, too. Imagine Phelps and Billy Graham showing up at the Pearly Gates at the same time. St. Peter says, "OK, which of you two was it that prayed with Presidents when they agonized over having to send the brave American soldiers off to war; and which of you two was the clown who showed up at the funerals of those brave American soldiers, carrying the 'God hates fags' signs?" Now, that would be a Southwest Airlines moment. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is not meant to be a forum. Take your discussion elsewhere. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 09:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Conservative?

His anti-homosexual stance is ultra-conservative. Is he classified as a conservative? If so, the American conservatives category should be added to the article. Werdnawerdna (talk) 02:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

He's run for the positions of Mayor, Governor and the Senate. Since he got 31% of the primaries vote in 1992, he must of had some platform to run on besides "I don't like homosexuals." They should ask Fred or his family what their or his political views besides gays are. --Mrdie (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

He ran on the democratic ticket and he supported Gore so he's at least not a Republican. Maybe homosexuality is his only conservative view? 11:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope, homosexuality is not his only conservative view, he is also anti-Semitic (anti-Jewish), anti-Irish, anti-Swedish, anti-foreign (except for Saddam Hussein), and a racist nationalist xenophobe in countless other ways. He is a total theocrat, so theocratic, in fact, that he opposes honoring the US military or flag (Many Amish, Mennonites, Jehovah's Witnesses, Adventists, Quakers, and other sects have similar views); he just might be more Biblically-consistent than the vast majority of Christian conservatives out there, but for whatever reason, he has decided to go it solo and disdain support from Republicans (maybe just to make the Democrats look bad by association with his ilk?). Shanoman (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Phelps is the most rabidly anti-American individual I know of besides Osama bin-Laden, he focuses on American culture and current events much more then any other nation. It would also be peculiar for a racist to take part in the civil rights movement. --70.66.215.185 (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Fag-enablers

The article fails to define what (in the opinion of Phelps and his followers) qualifies someone as being a fag-enabler. It makes sense for the term to apply to those who promote and support LGBT rights/people, but not all of the people classified as fag-enablers by Phelps and Co. are major backers of the LGBT community. For example, Louis Theroux's documentary shows Phelps' followers with signs, including one which comprised a picture of Diana, Princess of Wales, with a pink triangle stuck onto her forehead, along with the words 'royal whore in hell' written on it. Theroux told an activist working for Phelps' church that the placard is offensive; the reply was "she was a fag-enabler!" Putting a pink triangle on someone is portraying the person as homosexual; yet Diana was straight. Did Diana back the LGBT movement - or do they consider that she was pro-homosexual simply because she had some homosexual friends? Werdnawerdna (talk) 02:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I suspect their animus was provoked by Diana's concern for people with AIDS, and her failure to discriminate against them. It's left as an exercise for the reader how that translates to "fag-enabler". We shouldn't try, I don't think, to define "fag-enabler" for Phelps; it seems simply to mean "enemy", but there will probably be no reliable sources with a definition. - Nunh-huh 12:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's just snapping at people based on a gut feeling. The heck do I know? 204.52.215.107 (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Islamic

I feel the article would benefit from reference to his 'anti-islamic' views, specifically this quote from his website http://www.godhatestheworld.com/iraq/posterchildrenforsin.html

"Mohammed: This pervert claimed to be a prophet, when in fact he was just a power-hungry pedophile who created a false religious system that fueled a lot of violent activity and rebellion against God."

I don't think there are many people in the world who have called Mohammed such things, so this seems like an interesting and noteworthy addition to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.171.160.133 (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The claims of the Prophet Muhammad being a 'devil possessed pedophile' who 'started a false religion' are pretty common with evangelicals and the religious right, though Phelps's hatred of Islam seems relatively recent. Alot of it also seems to be tied up with a wider, anti-South Asian prejudice (notice that his 'god hates the world website' has already made pages for India, Pakistan and Bangladesh!). Equally interesting, though not noticed, is that Fred Phelps appaearantly said 'Saddam Hussain was the one Muslim leader who let them practice the gospel' and had been to Iraq to picket, I believe before the war. That has some disturbing implications, as getting to Iraq was problematic even back then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.224.20 (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Psychological profiling - Denial?

I know this will probably fall into the 'big hole' (pardon the pun) of No Original Research but has anyone psycho-analysed Fred?

or thought about adding a section to that affect?

I just think that Freddy, is someone who is so rapped up in every aspect of homosexuality that they can only be in some sort of denial about it to themselves?

methinks the lady doth protest too much

certain mental problems/obsessions manifest themselves because a person denies a perceived flaw in their own character by juxtaposing it on to an external agent i.e. passing the buck

just a thought

but Fred strikes me as a man who is a little too pre-occupied with gays - than is sanely healthy - I can only speak for myself but as a heterosexual, er I don't think about homosexuals at all, during the course of any given day

but hey that's just me , a straight guy, whereas Fred, I think he is screaming out for some jail time....

La ;-)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.131.217 (talk) 11:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Or that Phelps is simply a publicity hound who latched onto this issue because he knew it would put him in the spotlight. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Psychopathy

Some speculate the underlying issue is psychopathy, with sadistic features. All the rhetoric (religion!, gay people!, etc) is simply a 'vehicle', a means for a psychopathic personality be able to inflict distress upon others - from which a sadistic psychopath gains pleasure. Bucoli (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

anti gay = homophobia ??

Gay rights activists, as well as Christians of virtually every denomination, have denounced him as a producer of anti-gay propaganda and violence-inspiring hate speech.

Antifirearm = fear of fire arm? anti means against NOT FEAR OF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.89.93 (talk) 04:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"homophobia" equates to "fear of homosexuality". It's a PC word, in that it presupposes someone's being anti-homosexual is based on fear rather than on other reasons - such as the sincere belief that homosexual behavior is morally wrong. "gay" is a slangy word. "Anti-homosexuality" would be the most neutral and factual way of saying it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the discussion has to do with the article...is there a proposed change? In any case, to find out what a word means you need to look it up in a dictionary - a word's meaning can't be reconstructed by etymological addition. In this case, Merriam-Webster says homophobia means "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals." So that's what it means, regardless of whether any particular Wikipedian thinks that's what it should mean. If someone discriminates against homosexuals, they're homophobic, even if they discriminate on the basis of their sincere moral beliefs. - Nunh-huh 17:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The IP address raised the question and it deserves an answer. And Webster's definition is also based on a political agenda rather than on what the root words actually mean. Also, don't change the words of other editors. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't change your words: apparently the edit conflict resolution software had a hiccup. Fortunately or unfortunately, dictionaries are the way we determine what words mean, and your disagreement in this case is something you'll need to take up with them. Since there's no actual issue with regard to the article, I don't know that it needs further discussion here. - Nunh-huh 19:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hard telling what happened, as your edit [5] came over 2 hours after my previous edit, and my edit just before that one had said "it's", which I altered since it wasn't clear. Your edit went against my just-previous edit. Whatever. Anyway, they've got a problem with their wording. A phobia is a mental condition, not a behavior. Discrimination is a behavior, not a mental condition. Either Webster's slipping in his old age, or someone there is not paying attention. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue the user raised basically is whether "homophobia" is a proper synonym for "anti-gay", so it is a fair question for the article. For comparison, would you say someone who is anti-abortion is "abortionphobic"? Not necessarily. Maybe the problem is the "anti-gay" pointing to an article on "homophobia", when the article should simply say "homophobic". Maybe that would resolve the question raised by the IP address. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Who said "homophobia" is a phobia??? You're letting etymology mislead you. And, no, I wouldn't use the word "abortionphobic" because it's a neologism with no established meaning...unlike homophobia! I suppose we should let the IP pose his question in a more exact way then, before trying to see if it calls for any changes. - Nunh-huh 19:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you said homophobia was a phobia - "an irrational fear" - quoting Webster. I'm not changing the article at this point, because it's kind of complicated. The colloquialism "anti-gay" is in the lead, and connects to "homophobia", and there's an immediate problem there: "anti-gay" is an unencyclopedic expression by itself, as it's a colloquialism. "Anti-homosexual" would be the better term to use. It links to the "homophobia" article. That, along with your comment, turned the lightbulb on. A true phobia is an irrational fear. But if you're saying homophobia is not a true phobia, then it supports what I said earlier - that it's merely a "politically correct" term, invented as a pejorative to broadbrush everyone who takes an opposite political stand on the subject. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

There are actually only about 3 actual phobias - that is, irrational fears that are disorders recognized in the DSM... Most words that end in "phobia" are nonce words made up for the sport of it, and describe hypothetical fears rather than actual ones. That a word ends in "phobia" has meanings other than irrational fear really shouldn't surprise anyone. And no, "homophobia" is not identified as pejorative by any dictionary. Anyway, with regard to the article, I think the lede actually does say "anti-homosexual" as well as "anti-gay", and "anti-gay" is linked to what seems to me to be an unhelpful disambiguation page. Why not just unlink it? - Nunh-huh 21:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't care what the dictionary claims - "homophobia" is a PC term invented in order to characterize opponents of gay rights as being mentally ill, evil, or whatever - kind of "payback" to certain opponents of gays who characterize gays as being mentally ill, evil, or whatever (as with Phelps). And you're right, it does link to a disambiguation page - and since "anti-gay" is a broad-brush political comment, it's fitting. It lets the reader ponder just what it's supposed to mean, as an inadvertent distraction from going on and reading about this Phelps looney (to put it scientifically). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I see no reliable sources that back your claim that "homophobia is a PC term invented in order to characterize" people as "mentally ill, evil". While you can believe that, it is not a sustainable position to argue for any content decisions in the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

And yet that's how it's used. But maybe that term came from thin air. Or from a pixie. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Hes English? Welsh? Dutch? Scottish? any one know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.68.145 (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

fag enabler

Fag enabler redirects you to this article and yet there is only one mention (that mentioning being in the introduction) of fag enabling. Is it some sort of joke saying that hes a fag enabler? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.237.253 (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a term he is pretty much the only one using, so it redirects here. A redirect doesn't necessarily mean someone is that thing, only that the article you are directed to is the best at discussing the topic. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

One of these days he's going to show up at the wrong funeral, where some good ol' boys have their second amendment rights stashed in their pick-em-ups; and they'll take aim at Freddie and say, "Enable this!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a WP:FORUM. Keep the comments on topic. As to the original question, no, it's not a joke. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that's the same IP that tried to post a Biblical quotation earlier, in justification of Phelps' behavior. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You sure about that? Seems that IP only has one edit, and it was their comment here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right, same first two IP address segments, but different IP address, so it may or may not be the same guy. [6] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

But probably NOT, as they both trace to New York City. Sorry! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Fred Phelps' websites, can someone please add them in the article

Why have they been taken off? The most depraved porn articles have links to their filth. There seems to be a bias. They don't even allow me to comment. They are here insulting Fred Phelps...saying all kinds of lies cuz they disapprove of his authentic bible-preaching, but they won't tolerate me. If I get blocked, I will complain where I can, and if nothing is done. I will expose this. Thanks. Some be kind and add the links to mister Fred Phelps' websites. Jimihh (talk) 04:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Only sites critisizing Phelps are listed, none of his sites are listed. This is not fair. IS this supposed to be neutral? haha. Please someone do something about it, thanks. Don't just delete my comments. Jimihh (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Links to godhatesfags.com, godhatescanada.com, etc., are all linked in references. Usually the external links section is reserved for sites that have not been used in references for some reason, or for links that are critical to understanding the topic. I don't think it would be feasible to include all of Phelps' websites without turning the article into a link farm. Which websites would you like to be added? --Gimme danger (talk) 04:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

They are on Jimihh's talk page, and they are blogs or sites that start with "godhates...", which seems like inflammatory overkill. Also, there are at least 2 sites that are supportive of Phelphs here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, please note that the user is now on a 24-hour block due to personal attacks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of this user's uncivil disposition, it appears she has a point. It does seem odd that Phelps' primary website -- and I don't know which would be considered his primary website-- wouldn't be linked in his biography. Even if it pertains more specifically to WBC, it does provide an illustration to the reader. (I apologize for having dropped in unannounced. I didn't see Jimihh's previous comments before replying to them and I probably wouldn't have responded that way if I had.) --Gimme danger (talk) 05:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The user's "disposition", and taking into account who his hero is, amounts to trolling behavior, so there's only so far we can extend "good faith". If Phelps does, indeed, have a personal website, it could be considered for inclusion, if it's not already in the article. But such consideration does not include Phelps-like insults toward wikipedia editors. Which reminds me, I can only imagine what Phelps would have to say about someone like Hendrix. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that imagining isn't necessary; surely the man has shot his mouth off about Hendrix at some point. Anyhow, if no one objects, I'll add godhatesfags.com sometime tomorrow to the external links. Nothing representing Phelps' viewpoint is there right now and I don't think we have to worry to much about WP:UNDUE in the article about the fringe theory. I assume that would be considered his main site? --Gimme danger (talk) 05:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what his main site is, but it's not true that there's nothing representing his "viewpoint" in the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, that website is referenced numerous times already in the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologize, rereading my post I was unclear. I'm only talking about the external links section at the moment; I flippantly threw in a remark about undue weight, assuming that would be a possible objection to including a link to Phelps' site. I realize that the site is already referenced in the footnotes, as I noted in my response to Jimihh, but I've seen a link to the home page of a major related site in the external links of a lot of articles. I think it's helpful to have that information more easily accessible than in footnotes. --Gimme danger (talk) 05:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It's true that Jimihh was acting like a troll and we should have ignored his comments, but I don't really see any problem in linking to the GHF site on here. Just that link, though - the others, like God Hates Canada and whatnot - would be putting on a bit too much weight. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, it seems like there's consensus for just a single listing of his main "godhates" page, explicitly in the external links in addition to the various footnotes. And I would expect that the main page links to all those other "godhates" pages in any case. I still have this nagging suspicion that this character is pulling off a gigantic hoax, just to see what trouble he can cause; like the guy (Alan Abel)who got a lot of public support when he facetiously proposed putting pants on animals. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Edits to "Banned from United Kingdom"

RE: the following edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Phelps&diff=next&oldid=271826095

Please, Black Kite, could you explain why you performed this edit? Firstly, there is more information about the immigration ban on the WBC page, which is why I linked as the "main article". Second, the quotation I provided is specifically taken from The Sun's website, and you have attributed it to the BBC. I appreciate that the BBC might be considered a better news source, but the quote is from The Sun - and I have provided many more (reliable) sources on the main WBC page which was referenced in my edit. Thanks. Sibruk (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, the WBC article is already linked further up the page; and the BBC links tend to stay static, whereas it's been noted before that The Sun news articles are often archived fairly quickly and lead to dead links. Black Kite 17:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Explain "Fag Enabler" please

Hi there, I notice "Fag Enabler" redirects here, but nothing turns up if I search the article for that. Could someone please explain and make sure the term is there (in bold, as per WP:MOS). Thanks. 222.149.220.119 (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This is already discussed at least twice on this talk page. Please look at those discussions. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Since two people have taken the time to comment already, it's reasonable to assume that many more people are looking for an explanation of the phrase "fag enabler". Would it be more appropriate to have on the main WBC page as part of their views and then have the redirect go there? --Gimme danger (talk) 04:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I'm not surprised that other people raised the same issue, especially seeing as nothing has been done to address it. I refer you to Wikipedia:Redirect#What_needs_to_be_done_on_pages_that_are_targets_of_redirects.3F. Thank you. 125.200.66.47 (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

A fag enabler would be someone who won't help Phelps and his ilk wreak havoc on homosexuals. Kind of the "gay equivalent" of the term "n*gg*r lover". Ironically, George Carlin once said that in his day a fag was simply someone who was unmanly, not homosexual. Or as he put it in his usual blunt fashion, "A fag was someone who wouldn't go downtown and help beat up queers." What was a fag in Carlin's youth has now become a fag enabler. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, 125, since the term "fag enabler" frankly isn't important enough to be mentioned in the first two paragraphs of this article or to be bolded, perhaps your best recourse is to nominate the inappropriate redirect for deletion. People can't dictate the content of articles merely by creating redirects. - Nunh-huh 21:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Providing some definition somewhere in the article (not necessarily in the lead) would certainly improve the situation. I'm not sure what Nunh-huh means by "People can't dictate the content of articles merely by creating redirects" since I have not created that redirect, nor am I "dictating" anything, I just politely requested/suggested to edit the article to be more useful (and less ambiguous, if not downright inflamatory) since I cannot do it myself. Thanks. 122.21.223.53 (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

What I said is exactly what I meant: the fact that a redirect has been created doesn't require us to adjust the article, it means we need to re-evaluate the necessity of the redirect. I don't think we need an article on "fag enabler", a phrase used only by Phelps and his minions, and therefore I don't think we need a redirect: the phrase is simply not sufficiently notable. - Nunh-huh 00:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion. I have (apparently like many others) turned to Wikipedia to get an explanation of a phrase I have bumped into while watching a BBC documentary, which I would argue is notable enough. If you disagree, feel free to nominate for deletion. 122.21.223.53 (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Really? You looked up "fag enabler" instead of "Fred Phelps"?? Interesting as that is, I suspect that the "many" others had their curiosity piqued by the redirect, rather than the other way around. - Nunh-huh 00:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Really. Yes I have, and I find your punctuation excessive. 122.21.223.53 (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion on my punctuation is duly noted. - Nunh-huh 01:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

And punctually. I have seen plenty of redirects that send you to articles where the word in the redirect does not actually appear in the article. It is kind of ironic that "fag enabler" would take you to Phelps, as it implies that he himself is a fag enabler. Now, if the redirect said "idiot enabler", that would work. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it wouldn't. A redirect for "idiot enabler" would require sending the reader to a disambiguation page. It's a one-too-many relationship. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Flooding of James Bay?

At the end of the second paragraph, regarding the sentence

"He has also thanked God for the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and the 2005 flooding of James Bay in central Canada."

What is this flooding of James Bay? The James Bay article doesn't mention it, and a google of "2005 flooding of James Bay" brings up nothing. Furthermore the supposed reference (which is just a blog anyway) makes no mention of this event. And anyway, how can a bay flood, it is already a body of water. Did this event actually occur? Herostratus (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If it's a blog, it's an invalid source, and the quote should be removed. It could even be a hoax. It's certainly possible (though probably unlikely) for a bay to "flood" if enough water comes into it to make it rise noticeably. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, the two most recent severe James Bay floods were in 1985 and 2008. [7] So the James Bay certainly floods, but we seem to have no reliable source documenting Phelps's speculations on why that may be, and we have no documentation about a 2005 flood. - Nunh-huh 04:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence in question, which was not supported by the cited source. - Nunh-huh 04:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thereby, Phelps broke the Commandment not to bear false witness.

I'd like to know if this comment needs a citation, per WP:BLP, or if this is common knowledge. Bearian (talk) 04:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, of course it doesn't belong. Every good Catholic knows that the Ninth Commandment is not to covet your neighbor's wife :) - Nunh-huh 04:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, depending on how you count them, then it should be the 8th commandment. I'll try to get a cite before re-inserting it. Bearian (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

See The_Ten_Commandments#Division_of_the_Exodus_20_Commandments for the confusion. Bearian (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I meant the numbering remark only as a joke. (note the smiley face.) The reason it doesn't belong is that it's original commentary - a Wikipedian saying "gotcha" or "hypocrite" isn't encyclopedic. - Nunh-huh 22:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

To cite it correctly, in fact, you'd have to go to God.hvn and ask The Big Guy for His authoritative opinion on the matter. Normally blogs aren't acceptable, but we would argue for God being a reliable source on the grounds that He knows everything. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't find anything except blogs. I'm giving up! Bearian (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Heaven has its own Internet domain? Wow, how did Al Gore ever install those tubes? - Nunh-huh 02:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

To paraphrase Star Trek V, "Why does God need a reliable source?" arimareiji (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent) It's been too long, I don't remember what that commandment was... something about Lot and his daughters, or something about slaying people with the jawbone of an ass? arimareiji (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Grammar

There is no verb in the first sentence, but the page is semi-protected ... Blue.waterbox (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I have added "is an". Kevin (talk) 02:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Billy Graham reference

The article states that "[Phelps] worked with Billy Graham in his Los Angeles Crusade before Graham changed his views on a literal Hell and salvation outside of Jesus Christ." Is there any source to substantiate the assertion that Graham DOESN'T believe in a literal hell and DOES believe in salvation outside of Christ? This sounds like drivel written by Phelps supporters... -70.251.93.156 (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about that, but Graham has become more tolerant and forgiving as he's become older and wiser (a trait so far lacking in his son). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Though I would agree that Graham has indeed become more tolerant and more forgiving (indeed, wiser) with age (and that his son certainly has not), I very much doubt that most mainstream Christians would regard the adjusting of one's core theology to include "belief in salvation outside of Jesus Christ" as the result of becoming "more tolerant and forgiving". -70.251.93.156 (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Just my nasty suspicion, but I would bet it's probably more something along the lines of "before Graham explicitly repudiated pseudo-religious hatred," "before Graham said that not every religion except Phelps' is going to Hell," or "before Phelps stopped taking his meds." arimareiji (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Calvinism

The "Religious Beliefs" section claims that Phelps is a Calvinist, and specifically that he adheres to the point of unconditional election. The reference given for this point is a sermon of his that is absolutely not Calvinist, and in fact is in near total opposition to unconditional election, as is the core of most of Phelp's statement. The sermon referenced argues that God does not love everyone, but that in fact god hates sinners, and dwells heavily on sinners' actions being the reason that god does not love them. This is in direct opposition to unconditional election which puts forth that the Elect are Elect through no action of their own.

Additionally, the whole "God hates fags" concept and repeated assertions that people are going to hell BECAUSE of their homosexuality and enabling thereof, which is repeated often on his web sites, is directly in contrast to Calvinism and unconditional election.

If no one has an objection, I am going to reword this to include that he rails against Armenianism (included in the referenced sermon) but does not actually adhere to Calvinist dogma.

Mathlaura (talk) 07:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Political Party in Box?

Why is Mr. Phelps's alleged political party in the box (top right) describing his position as pastor of Westboro Baptist Church? I don't see how this relates to his notorioty, nor do I think most Democrats would accept him as a representative.Wuicker (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I also wondered why political parties are mentioned on certain BLP articles. I was told that if a person makes their political party well-known (in Phelps' case, he ran for office as a Democrat...so it's not really alleged. it's true), then it's okay to include it in the infobox. Whether or not most Democrats agree with his views, that doesn't change the fact he identifies as a Democrat (although he may have left the Party by now, I'm not sure). I'm sure there's a large number of people who are registered Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, etc. that are not wanted by the national committees. You can voice your concerns here and probably get better help. Cheers. APK How you durrin? 19:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Brown vs Board of Education

Fred Phelps was NOT involved in the case of Brown vs Board of Education. He simply used that case as the catalyst for his decision to move to Kansas. The reference to Brown vs Board of Education should be removed immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.166.175.129 (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

~~ He received an award in the 1980's for his civil rights activitsm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.247.242 (talk) 23:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Distinguish from Baptist and Calvinist Identity

Fred Phelps calls himself Baptist and Calvinist, but is in clear contradiction to central tenets of both groups. This is not personal research, you can see many 3rd party sources.97.89.29.177 (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm Jewish, yet I sometimes eat shellfish. That doesn't give you the right to tell me I'm not Jewish. Articles on Wikipedia tend to use the self-identification standard. It may or may not be notable to show that others reject them, but that doesn't change what you list them as. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Irish?

Ironically, FP's main Irish target, "fag" Senator Norris, is a protestant of English ancestry, not even a true Irish Catholic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.205.219 (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

WTF since when has Roman Catholicism been a qualification for being "true Irish" and of what relevence is ones ancestry ? By that logic there are few (if any) "true Americans" indeed given that Ireland was uninhabited 8,000 years ago there are obviously no "true Irish" either ? Seemingly the real irony is that someone having a go at the hatemonger Phelps seems to have a few issues themselves ? 86.112.254.163 (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I read in the article that he is anti-Irish. What are some of the statements that he's made about the Irish? 24.128.144.74 11:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Since there was no source for that, I removed it. Argyriou (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

He is anti-Irish, check out www.godhatesireland.com, complete with a backwards Irish flag, and racist sterotypes (leprechauns).

He hates every country in the world and everyone who lives in them, Apparently just because I live in a country where homosexuals are not executed I am a 'fag-enabler', and the Queen is the 'queen of fags', Under that logic surely the westboro baptist church are 'fag enablers' because they live in the US?-Ted Fox 09:44, 23 June 2008 (GMT)

Then again Phelps probably considers me a fag because I am bisexual. The man is insane and if I had my way him and his entire cult would be hounded and harrased by people he doesn't like (ie. everyone! Gays, Americans, South Africans, Britons, the Royal Family etc.) for the rest of his life, People would wave their nations flags patriotically, sing songs and hold placards with phrases like "God hates the Westboro Baptist Cult", "You're going to hell, Fred Phelps", "Phelps is a Fag" and "God hates your hate"-Ted Fox 15:00, 23 June 2008 (GMT)

Buddy, someone I know by the name of "Sharolaid" nailed him and his goofy daughter. As for me, I'd go into berserk if I met them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.149.132 (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that this discussion is supposed be about how to improve the article and not your opinion of Fred Phelps. I have left the comments by Ted Fox because I do not want to censor him. But if we could veer this discussion away from personal feelings or mudslinging (even justified mudslinging), I would appreciate it. <-- Laura-Jane -- Oct. 23, 2009 @ 6pm (GMT)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.110.241.28 (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This thread is more than a year old. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Cross-ref error in "Education" section.

In the education section, the link for "John Muir College" --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasadena_City_College#History

is incorrect. It should link to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Muir_College

I'm apparently not established enough as a user to make this change -- ah well :-)

Athansor (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Lady Gaga as a hate target

According to recent news he now also targets lady gaga, source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/24454887/God-Hates-Lady-Gaga Hoo Hoo Nick (talk) 15:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)