Jump to content

Talk:Fred Phelps/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Early life?

Is there an early life section that one would normally expect in a Wikipedia biography of a person? If so, I don't see it. Mechamind90 (talk) 03:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

West Point attendance?

This is his current bio on the church's website, which states:

Fred Phelps was born Nov. 13, 1929, in Meridian, Mississippi. Graduated Meridian High at 16 with highest academic honors, American Legion Citizenship Award, track letter, Bausch-Lomb Science Award, Eagle Scout, Principal Appointment to West Point Military Academy. The summer following graduation, he had a profound religious experience, gave up West Point, enrolled instead for Bible/ministerial training at Bob Jones College, Cleveland, Tennessee (later moving with them as they transitioned to Bob Jones University, Greenville, South Carolina)...

Apparently, he claims that he attended West Point and left after a profound religious experience. Is there any evidence to support these claims or are they simply fabrications? I think it would be important to include information that either substantiates or refutes his West Point attendance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christoofor (talk • contribs) 15:04, October 30, 2008

Actually, he's claiming that his principal got him an appointment to West Point, but that after graduation he abandoned the West Point appointment in favor of enrolling at Bob Jones. He does not claim to have attended the Academy. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Need revert

User:KyuubiSeal has exchanged all links for links to 4chan.com imageboard. Not registered, can't revert this vandalism. 74.97.80.79 (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done Good catch. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Homophobia category

Just so we're all clear, per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 18#Category:Homophobia, "no articles for allegedly homophobic people (including fictional people), organizations, or media should exist in this category." Therefore, the article about Fred Phelps - who is allegedly homophobic - should not appear in the Homophobia category... so stop adding it. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Civil Rights activist?

Can We get a source on that? It seems debatable but it implies a lot of things.... Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

What part of the article are you referring to? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
First Intro paragraph
"Phelps is a disbarred lawyer, founder of the Phelps Chartered law firm and former candidate for political office, and was a civil rights activist in Kansas. He and his daughter, Shirley Phelps-Roper, are banned from entering the United Kingdom." Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I see. Check the whole Civil rights attorney section. There's plenty of sources there. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
oops missed that section with Control+f Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Vexatious litigation

Seems to me that Phelps easily meets the definition of a vexatious litigant, especially when reading through this source. Any thought on the best we to introduce this to the article without being OR? Beach drifter (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Further, does a source such as this imply that he has been found vexatious by a court of law? Beach drifter (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Contentious point >> Note left on Help Desk

Editors, please read this note [1] left on the help desk and incorporate the necessary points. In case there are issues, kindly discuss. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 08:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

NPOV issue possibly?

I'd say this might be considered a bit slanted against him... though its pretty hard to paint anything good about him, considering everything... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.195.210 (talk) 06:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is mostly about writing style and representing the content correctly, not adding formulation biases, but instead writing factually and neutrally. If you can find positive and citeable things about him, go ahead write it per WP:BOLD, but remember that that must be written factually and neutrally too. If his negative acts dominates over the positive acts, then the article should have this domination of negative acts too. That's NPOV. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 18:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Suits filed by these people?

Since several persons involved are described as lawyers - who do they file lawsuits on behalf of or against? When I search I find scanty and apparently unreliable sources that I don't think I'll be able to use. For example, there is a document posted in several places on the Web that describes him suing people who attacked him [2]; however, one site I found couldn't confirm that there was any truth to it [3] and even that probably isn't a proper Wikipedia source let alone for a BLP. The Southern Poverty Law Center has a page that is probably citable [4] and describes some lawsuits by the church - but what they describe doesn't sound profitable. This leaves me all very confused, as I'd think that lawyers inevitably make money from their profession, and everything is on the record. Has anyone here tried to dig into this? Wnt (talk) 05:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Think of them as "protest lawyers", using the law to promote their views. With the family's knowledge of the law, they can file loud, splashy lawsuits that are designed to gain publicity and allow them to promote their message. Being lawyers, it doesn't cost them much to do this, costs their targets a great deal and they have a chance to get some publicity for free. They also use suits as a way to silence/stifle critics. Done creatively, it can be effective. Google "Petswarehouse Novak and Lawsuit" for an example of a private individual who uses pro-se lawsuits in a similar manner. As long as the suits aren't judged as frivolous and they follow proper procedure, it's tough to stop. Ravensfire (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Once again, this talk page is not a forum. Take your discussions elsewhere. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Cool down, please! User:Wnt had some citations to discuss. Some topic clarifications are sometimes needed for reviews of the article content. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 18:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

sources

A recent interview with one of his sons speaking about many of the various issues and clarifying a few points. http://www.xtra.ca/public/National/Son_of_God_hates_fags_preacher_angry_with_fathers_teaching-8640.aspx

Aah, eeh! I couldn't find those clarifications, unless they've already been added to the exceedingly detailed and well sourced article. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 19:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hyper-calvinism?

I don't exactly doubt it, but is his alleged "Hyper-calvinism" actually citeable? Normal "Hyper-calvinists" usually don't profess such a label, that among "Calvinists" is like: "someone who have misunderstood even the basics". Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 20:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Democratic candidate

Since there is such common misconception about Phelps being associated with the Republican party as opposed to the Democratic party I recommended including the adj. "Democratic" in the introduction: "former Democratic candidate for political office". 128.175.146.153 (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You really don't think that the subsection Democratic Party, where it says "Phelps has run in various Kansas Democratic Party primaries five times, but has never won", is sufficient? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the Democratic Party subsection would suffice; laying it out in the introduction implies that he has some meaningful connection to the party, which he does not - particularly considering that the article describes various major Democratic figures that he despises. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkverve99 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Funeral Ronnie James Dio

This nutcase is proposing that his fellow nutcases should protest Dio's funeral. We should add an article about that, I didn't see one. What the hell's wrong with this guy? He ESTRANGED his children? What a creep! But, we should add this to his crazy shit he does list. BlackSabbath1996 (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Dude, I don't like him any more then you do, but there's something called neutrality. 96.55.192.119 (talk) 03:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Allegations of abuse and cult behavior

The lead section fails to incorporate these serious allegations or mention his penchant for delusional behavior. Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Early life section?

Where is it? Viriditas (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This source covers most of it. Viriditas (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
To be added. Viriditas (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Interviews

This page could do with sources from interviews of Phelps, both done by like-minded people and people with different views than him. The questions asked in such interviews would be wildly different from each other and bring out different aspects of his life, personality, views, etc. If anyone knows of any interviews of him, please post the links here so we can get to work! --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 17:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

BIG BLP vilations

MAssive amounts of Primary sources used that are not supported by any secondary soures and WP:UNDUE issues as well PArts need a rewrite or are being removed entirly. Currently fixing issues. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that it's OK to leave this in.[5] It's a primary source but it's apparently run by Phelps so there's no BLP violation. But obviously, secondary source would be better. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
We can do better, that whole section is almost primary but we can restore a similiar phrase with better sourcing later. I am calling it a night but I'll be back tommorow for more clean up. that whole section looks like someone but a link to every website they own and labeled a section "Anti-this" and then people added additional citations later. so thats my goal to clean up that with secondary sourcing Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this edit,[6] I believe that www.godhatesfags.com is run by Phelps, so it's not a BLP violation. However, I would agree that a secondary reliable source is preferable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've confirmed from WHOIS data that godhatesfags.com is licensed to the WBC, and added that source to the article. I suggest restoring the information sourced to godhatesfags.com as an interim measure until a reliable source is found with the same info. Matchups 18:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I am generally in favor with avoiding primary sources for these groups as there so easy to misuse.My issue with that edit was it was the only sources for the statement Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree, limited primary cites and supported content, if it has not been reliably independently reported then we should take care not to report the groups primary content when it is not reported at independent reliable locations. Off2riorob (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

moved to talk

Phelps was first arrested in 1951 and found guilty of misdemeanor battery after attacking a Pasadena police officer.[citation needed] He has since been arrested for assault, battery, threats, trespassing, disorderly conduct, contempt of court, and several other charges; [citation needed]each time, he (along with Westboro and its other members) has filed suit against the city, the police, and the arresting officers.[citation needed]

This content was uncited and really needs citing before replacing. Off2riorob (talk) 05:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What are his views on lesbians and female bi's?

Not a Forum

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Leviticus doesn't seem to say much on them.206.130.174.42 (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I assume still "f" in his book. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
If so, then it's not substantiated in the OT here. Here's the specific verse.
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination".
King James Bible
No mention of women sleeping with women
206.130.174.42 (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Fred Phelps tends to ignore a lot of the Bible. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Remember WP:FORUM... lets get back on track and improve the article! The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


I know. I know.;-) I'll likely be asking the question in the RationalWiki talk page on Phelps. Conservapedia describes him as a liberal. The thing is, he managed to explain the shrimp thing, but if he couldn't explain this, it could cause a major schism in the church or movement. I wonder what is his theological basis for his homophobia. If it's lacking, I figure that it should be mentioned in the article.206.130.174.42 (talk) 20:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Phelps condemned by Primitive Baptists

Since this entry lists Phelps as a Primitive Baptist, it would be very helpful to include a phrase denoting the Primitive Baptist's universal condemnation of Phelps.

Here are two sources: http://marchtozion.com/church/382-fred-phelps-and-westboro-baptist-church-are-not-primitive-baptists http://primitivebaptist.info/mambo/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=1434

Phelps was ordained by a Southern Baptist church, not a PB church. To be a Primitive Baptist minister requires a Primitive Baptist ordination. Phelps has no such ordination. Also, each Primitive Baptist church comes from another PB church, as church succession is a crucial belief of Primitive Baptists. Westboro has no such lineage.

It is a serious misrepresentation of Primitive Baptists to list Phelps as a PB without clarification that he is rejected and condemned by them.

Bwinslett (talk) 23:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted your edits because they're unreliable sources. In particular, both are self-published sources and can't be used in general - and particularly on an article of a living person. Also, nndb is not reliable either, as anyone can edit it. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Helloannyong: Neither of those are "unreliable sources" You are mistaken. Those happen to be two Primitive Baptist ministries. Prove me wrong. Either remove the phrase that Phelps is a PB, or add a phrase that PBs condemn Phelps. He is counterfeit and it is shameful to cast an entire organization in such a negative light.

To your thought that the sources are unreliable, here is a news article substantiating Phelps' ordination with the Southern Baptists AND a reference to the "disclaimer" from Primitive Baptist Online. http://www.ydr.com/living/ci_16259961

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwinslett (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict)The issue isn't about those ministries being Primitive Baptists or honest (that's accepted), it's that we have guidelines determining what reliable sources are. Self published sources aren't accepted as reliable for use in the encyclopedia. What we need is a second hand source documenting that Primitive Baptists traditionally only recognize ministers ordained in PB churches as PB ministers, a source (secondary, from Phelps, or the SBC) that states that Phelps was ordained by the SBC, and a secondary (preferably unaffiliated) source that states that PBs reject Phelps. Since we traditional Baptists don't have a heirarchy, we can't exactly call on something like a Papal Bull to show that, no, he's not one of us. The Primitive Baptists (I feel for ya, but I'm with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship) need outsiders to do that.
(edit conflict) Ok, the news article does that. Rule of thumb, use secondary sources. If you use primary sources, they pretty much have to be directly affiliated (a statement by Phelps or the SBC to establish they ordained him, for instance). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Phelps against Canada

Canada should be added to the list of people, groups and countries he's against. He openly believes Canada is run and populated by gay Jewish Nazis {tell us, Mr. Phelps, how does that make ANY sense in your brain?}, claims that everyone in Canada is possessed by demons, and admitted that he likes to fly the Canadian flag upside-down as a show of disrespect.

He was also denied entry to Canada due to his intent to make what's defined by Canadian law as hate speech.

216.121.183.75 (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I tried connecting to godhatessweden.com but get a "Server not found" error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.113.154 (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Could be a temporary error? Maybe someone's DDoS'ed it? Well, it's not coming up on Google, so it could be down, but then again, Google's motto is "Don't be evil"... Ian.thomson (talk) 16:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
No, there website is now located at an even more unfortunate domain name of http://www.godhatesfags.com/ . This needs to be changed to reflect there new site. 208.102.37.24 (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
No, that is neither new nor is it not in the article. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Keith Allen

Keith Allen also interviewed the family. Should be added in the media section. The following link is the evidence. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7735501683185935638#docid=1255630606668114621 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.196.147 (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Religious beliefs section

Why does the religious beliefs section contain his opinion on Sweden and his past political activity? --Aquillion (talk) 14:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Mace Attack

This line either needs to be removed or needs a new source. The current source specifically says "Members of Kansas’ Westboro Baptist Church were protesting outside the funeral for Staff Sgt. Michael Bock. Police say they weren’t believed to be involved in mace incident." 24.8.190.29 (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed it. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Is Katherine Phelps-Griffin truly estranged from the family?

Based on Nate Phelps speech (http://natephelps.com/10801.html) and a note he received from her on May 21, 2009 (http://natephelps.com/32549.html), it sounds like she was estranged before she turned 18 but is no longer estranged from her family. More evidence can be found with her posting on this page (http://www.me-me-me.tv/2008/02/13/what-are-we-going-to-wear/) from March 29th, 2008 at 10:29 pm.

Millers2000 (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Whatever her status is, it's not getting in the article; the above is synthesis of sources. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Needs to show respect to her husband and drop that hyphenated foolishness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.176.138 (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Lawsuit Against WBC Defense Counsel

{{Edit semi-protected}}

Under the "Lawsuit against Westboro Baptist Church" heading, please change, "Megan Phelps, one of Fred Phelps' children, represented the Westboro Baptist Church," to "Margie Phelps, one of Fred Phelps' children, represented the Westboro Baptist Church."

Megan Phelps is not an attorney, and is the daughter of Shirley Phelps-Roper. Margie Phelps, Fred's daughter, is the defense counsel for Westboro Baptist Church in the case being heard by SCotUS. Thank you. Jwj2xx4 (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate it, keep up the good work, Jwj2xx4 (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Sweden

This section is un-sourced or under-sourced. Where does the estimate of 20,000 deceased Swedes come from? 2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake estimates ~500. 67.244.89.230 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC). The second link in that section http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=818&date=20050107 has it. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Olaf66, 15 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} In the "Responses - Laws limiting funeral protests" section please change

"On May 17, 2006, the state of Illinois enacted Senate Bill 1144, the "Let Them Rest In Peace Act", to shield grieving military families from protests during funerals and memorial services of fallen soldiers."

to "On May 17, 2006, the state of Illinois enacted Senate Bill 1144, the "Let Them Rest In Peace Act", to shield grieving military families from protests during funerals and memorial services of fallen troops."

Soldiers are members of the US Army, and it is not appropriate to refer to service members of other services as Soldiers, the term troops is a more appropriate word

Olaf66 (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Done [7]. FYI for future requests you should make the request on the talk page for the specific article you want edited. E.g. Talk:Westboro Baptist Church. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Civil rights cases

To the section where his involvement in the civil rights movement is discussed it should be added.

instead of:

"I systematically brought down the Jim Crow laws of this town,"

this:

"I systematically brought down the Jim Crow laws of this town," he says. While this is clearly an overstatement, local officials confirm that he approached this earlier cause with customary zeal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.126.14 (talk • contribs)

This section stated: "In the 1980s, Phelps received awards from the Greater Kansas City Chapter of Blacks in Government and the Bonner Springs branch of the NAACP, for his work on behalf of black clients.[1]" However, this link does not make any mention of these awards. I replaced the citation with a reference that does. A search of the websites of Blacks in Government (www.bignet.org) and NAACP has no results for Phelps nor Westboro Church. FatTrebla (talk) 05:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Article missing Phelps' statements on gay civil rights

He must have an expressed opinion on Prop. 8, DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act), Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal. He is not reticent about sharing his opinions about gays. It would really help the article. --Javaweb (talk) 13:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Reggie White as Phelps target...why?

Somebody should add some info as to why Phelps would go after Reggie White. White was just as antigay as Phelps was. What was Pastor Fred's beef with the "Minister Of Defense"?

It's because the Minister of Defense Knows the truth about Fred Phelps. <BLP vio removed>—Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.68.18 (talk) 06:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.72.208 (talk • contribs) 09:07, December 4, 2008

Phelps Jr. not a delegate?

The Mother Jones article footnoted (section 3.3) contains no information regarding Fred Phelps Jr. as being Gore's delegate to the 1988 Democratic National Convention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phlip217 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Documentary not mentioned - Fall from Grace (2007)

I'm new to editing, but it looks like this article is at least semi-locked. What I wanted to add to the Media section is that there is a documentary on Fred Phelps and his family and church called "Fall from Grace" done in 2007, written and directed by K Ryan Jones. This includes interviews with Fred Phelps and several of his family members as well as some prominent Topekans. It is available on Netflix and is listed on the Internet Movie Database at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0977649/. Can someone add this please? 69.42.34.173 (talk) 04:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)HistoryLunatic

Fred Phelps, Democrat?

Looks as if there's some dispute over whether or not Phelps should be included in Category:Kansas Democrats.

I'd say not. He's not really part of the structure of the Democratic Party in Kansas. He doesn't hold any leadership position or actually any position at all, paid or unpaid, in the party hierarchy. He doesn't hold any elective office or indeed any public office and I don't think he ever has, or even worked for the government, or had an patronage position or anything like that. He's not supported or embraced by the rank-and-file of the Kansas Democratic Party or even any small part of it. As far as I know he's never done fund-raising for the party or performed any other important service for the party. He doesn't adhere generally to the tenets of the party.

Maybe he usually votes Democratic in elections, but so what (and I'm not sure he votes or how we'd know how he votes, if he even does vote). If we used that criterion half the United States citizen with an article could be placed in Category:State XYZ Democrats (or Republicans). Is this where we want to go?

It's claimed that he he has run for office, as a Democrat. If this is true, so what. Anybody can do that. This doesn't change the fact that he's not really part of the state Democratic Party in any meaningful way. Charles Manson could run in a Republican primary, would we then include him in Category:California Republicans alongside Ronald Reagan and so forth? That would make the category overly broad and thus less useful, I would say. Herostratus (talk) 01:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a pretty convincing argument for omitting the tag. Works for me. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree: being a voter for, and even running for office as, a party member is not sufficient grounds to include someone as a member of the party. I would want reliable sources saying that he was at least elected as a precinct committee chair or held an inside job such as campaign chair for him to be put in that category. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

So it's fine to have Tim McVeigh listed as a Republican, but not okay to have Phelps included in the Kansas Democrats category?

Thismightbezach (talk) 03:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

While I oppose removing Phelps from the category, it should be noted that McVeigh acted out on his political views. Phelps doesn't openly express any. Est300 (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed mcaveigh from the republican cat - if hes replaced then we will add Phelps to the democrat cat. Off2riorob (talk) 03:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent shooting in Arizona

At the request of a brand new user could someone update the page to include the recent events of the shooting at a Safeway parking lot in Arizona and the comments Fred Phelps made public on his infamous videos? Thanks. --SHODAN 117 24:32, 11 January 2011 (PST)

See pertinent versions linked here. --Haruo (talk) 05:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from , 7 October 2011

Under heading : Civil rights cases ... article states: His son Nate claims that his father was inclined towards prejudice against blacks, and took the cases simply to make money off them, which Phelps denies.[13] -this footnote does not support claim. I looked it up and found no reference to his son saying this. Please verify if I am in error.

Newtonsghost (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 1 November 2011

The film Red State was released in 2011. I am currently watching it on Netflix.

wertperch (talk) 03:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Done The request seems to be pointing out that our article said the film was being produced, as in future tense and unreleased, when it was in fact released earlier this year and is available for viewing. I've made the tense change. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Bias Tag

I entered the bias tag on this article due to its overall tone and subtle tactics being used, such as questioning clearly reliable sources as unreliable. The entry sounds more like a publicity release than an objective article. WBC is known to troll Wikipedia and other sites to ensure that any critical entries are removed and the editors embarrassed and harassed. This article needs to be cleaned up for balance and also for citations and reference sources. The Moody Blue (Talk) 07:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

So, do you have any actual specific suggestions for improving the article? Or is this just a drive-by tagging cum mini-rant with a side order of unsupported accusations? Fat&Happy (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I have to concur with Fat&Happy.... I did a read-through of most of the article and the only unreliable source tags I saw looked like they deserve further investigation, not removal. WP:BLP is a policy that applies to political lightning-rods of all persuasions. Sailsbystars (talk) 17:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Suspension Before Disbarment

Would it be appropriate to mention that his law license was suspended for a two year period in 1969 as well (only five years after his admission to practice)? I just read this: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3352173787254565187&hl=en&as_sdt=2,50 and it appears that he misappropriated funds on one count and harassed a client who fired him on another. If so, does it belong under the disbarment heading or should it be separate? Jwj2xx4 (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Fred Phelps on his pulpit.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Fred Phelps on his pulpit.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Fred Phelps on his pulpit.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Needs tidying

At the moment, the only thing in family life is from Nate. How many children are there in total ?

When Westboro start ? Has it always been run by him ? Was it always activist - or is that a later development ? -- Beardo (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Children

In Louis Theroux's documentary "America's Most Hated Family" it is stated that Phelps has 14 children. Our article says 13. Any idea who's wrong here? Joefromrandb (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hyper-Calvinism

Fred Phelps is not a Calvinist. He is a Hyper-Calvinst. It is inaccurate information to classify him as such. We need to address this or this is a glaring inaccuracy in the article. I have created the Hyper-Calvinist sub-category, and assigned him to it (and have no problem going through and assigning others to populate the category) but it has been reverted twice (once inaccurately saying that it was a pseudo-attack, once just saying we don't have the category... which we do not).

What's the solution going forward? ReformedArsenal (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, we do not have a category. We also need a source identifying Phelps as a Hyper-Calvinist. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Any reason we couldn't create it (I did create it, but the same person who didn't do their research and reverted me the first time also deleted it...) Here's the source http://books.google.com/books?id=5mgaAAAACAAJ&dq=1931667888&hl=en&sa=X&ei=W8TFULuzGoiw0QGgjoCIDA&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAw (pp 55-56 has a list of people, Phelps is on it)
There, I added the source, created the category, and switched him over. ReformedArsenal (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
At this point I personally have no objections, but I could imagine that someone might ask for a "more non-sectarian" source. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
If they have a problem with it, they cna mention it and we can talk about it. ReformedArsenal (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
WP:BLPCAT. Has Phelps self-identified as a hyper-Calvinist? He should't be put back into Category:Calvinists unless a consensus of RSes call him a Calvinist, but he can't be put in Category:Hyper-Calvinists unless he self-identifies or dies. --JFHutson (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Since when does how a person self identifies become the trump card. If his theology fits the definition of Hyper-Calvinism that has been supported by WP:RS and there are also RS that identify him as such, why would the article not reflect that? ReformedArsenal (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I dunno, I just saw WP:BLPCAT. It seems clear enough to me. BLPs get special treatment. --JFHutson (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
It is deeply concerning to me that people keep saying that the term is generally held as a pejorative... but are unable to show any sources that actually state that it is necessarily a pejorative (every source I see provided says it is a pejorative when used incorrectly... but not when it is used correctly). ReformedArsenal (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

His brother?

Rev. Fred Phelps bears an uncanny resemblance to Rev. Henry Kane.

http://www.myspace.com/538193544/photos/4812174 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.152.100 (talk) 11:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Quote citation

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/us/26funeral.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0 is a reference for an unreferenced quote in the article. "whether the defendant's actions would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, whether they were extreme and outrageous and whether these actions were so offensive and shocking as to not be entitled to First Amendment protection" CloudSurfer (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus to remove reliable sourced info that has been in the article in present form for several years.

Have I missed something? What I reverted was added this morning.[8]. It is not about Phelps support for Al Gore, it was adding statements by Al Gore with no reference at all to Phelps. I'll assume that's an error and remove it again, both because the reason for reverting me seems incorrect and because it's about Gore's position on homosexuality, not Phelps. Also removing a statement that Gore attended a fundraiser as I can't find it in the source. Both are BLP violations in my opinion. Dougweller (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

While maybe not relevant, how is the former a BLP violation?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I've objected to the introduction of the Clinton/Gore content, but it seems that ExclusiveAgent insists that be included.
I would also like to understand this: "Phelps' son, Fred Phelps Jr., hosted a Gore fundraiser at his home in Topeka and was a Gore delegate to the 1988 Democratic National Convention." I'm not sure this belongs in biography about Fred Phelps. Fred Phelps ≠ Fred Phelps Jr. - MrX 16:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Look at the sources ExclusiveAgent offers. The goal is clearly to taint Gore (and all Democrats) by association with Phelps Sr. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Now at BLPN but I didn't add the bit about his son. Dougweller (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey, first of all, let's all just calm down. Let's discuss these issues right here on the talk page for Fred Phelps and stay off my personal talk page. Also, please assume that any edits that I made I made in good faith. Also, do not inject your beliefs into what I am doing, Orangemike. You do not know me personally and we have never met. Please focus your discussion on this article and this article alone and how this article can be made better. Orangemike you stated, and I quote you directly, "The goal is clearly to taint Gore (and all Democrats) by association with Phelps Sr." That is a your opinion about what my goal is. It is not about the article. Please focus your attention on the article, not me. Now, it is a fact that Fred, Jr. invited Gore to his home for a fundraiser and it is fact that Gore did attend the fundraiser. This is notable information because it shows the extend that the Phelphs are/were part of the Democratic Party. This article is about Fred, Sr. and it is about Fred, Sr.'s family and Fred, Jr. is an important part of the whole Phelps story. It is relevant. What I am looking for is some substantive discussion about why the information should be removed from the article and so far your comments about me and my "goals" (as you say) is completely off topic and does not speak to the editing issues involved here. Please explain why the information does not belong since it is: (1) notable and (2) reliably sourced.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I've never posted to your talk page.
I agree. I apologize if I made that reference unclear. That was directed to two other editors that wanted engage this discussion there.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I was forced to conclude that you must have an agenda, since these items are sourced to a Log Cabin Republicans website and to two far-right propaganda mills with radical agendas and nothing but hate for Democrats, yet you keep putting them in. This is not the article about Westboro Baptist Church, by the way, or about Fred Jr.; this is the article about Fred Sr. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Dear OrangeMike: You have been an editor a very long time and you know that as an editors we are not to engage in speculation about what the other editor's goals are. One of the sources has been in the article for several years. I did not originally put it in--so you are incorrect in that statement. However, once again, I repeat this Gore attended a fundraiser at Fred, Jr.'s house. This is fact. It is reliably sourced and it is notable. Please focus on those facts and please stop attempting to state what you believe to be my "goals" are, what my "goals" are do not speak to the editing issues involved here. It is pure speculation on your part, please focus on editing and not speculation.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
By the way, the talk page thing works both ways.
I agree and that is what I have been saying to you all along. You want to talk, then let's talk right here. Thank you for coming around to my original point.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Respectfully, your edits seem (to me) to be trying to use this article as a COATRACK to sully Democrats by way of SYNTHESIS and UNDUE content. The content belongs in Political activities of the Phelps family, not in this biography. Moreover, edit warring to get your way is not acceptable. The burden is on you to demonstrate that there is consensus to include this novel content, not the other way around. - MrX 18:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I have not engaged in edit warring. So please stop making false statements, MrX.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I just reviewed the Noticeboard for BLP and there has been a novel complaint about my editors. Apparently, Doug Weller and Orangemike do not want my edits to stand because the fact that Gore attended a fundraiser at Fred Phelps, Jr.'s home could potentially be embarrassing for, and I quote directly, "other Democrats." Since when is information that is: (1) true and factual, (2) notable, and (3) reliably sourced removed from Wikipedia just because it might be embarrassing for a few politicians. No, wait, for a few Democrats!!!! I have not read anywhere in the Wikipedia rules that information must be removed if it could potentially embarrass "other Democrats." Please explain that one, if you can.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Fred Phelps Jr. != Fred Phelps Sr. That's reason enough it's not appropriate to have in this article... Sailsbystars (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I have explained that one. 1) the items are not from any remotely reliable source; 2) the information are mostly not about Phelps but about his son; 3) the emphasis appears to be violative of WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK, especially since the authors of all three articles are openly making this fuss to embarass/taint Gore and the Democrats, which 4) inevitably leads me to question your good faith in making such a fuss about keeping this stuff in, and in failing to address the substantive issues 1, 2 and 3. (For the record: I was not a Gore backer in either of these years.) --Orange Mike | Talk 19:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Dear orangemike: Let me make it clear one more time. According to Wikipedia rules you are not supposed to questions my goals or motives and I have asked you three times to stop it, but you continue to do it. Please stop. Even though you have engaged in personal attacks toward my goals and motivations and I have asked you politely to stop I will have to point out to you that if you continue to engage inappropriate behavior then I will be forced to escalate this discussion to a higher level. You need to stop.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 13:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with everyone that is against inclusion of this material. MrX's suggestion of creating a new article might be appropriate if the passion is that strong.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
For goodness sake ExclusiveAgent we're allowed to question your goals and motives if there's reasonable cause to do so. No one's edits are beyond question here. How on earth did you get any other impression? If your motives are pure -- you are only interested in improving the article and are not driven by any animus toward the Democratic Party or anything else -- then you'll come out of it OK I expect. Are they? Herostratus (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Dear Herostratus: There was no reason to question my motives. Period. Always you are a little late to bashing party, you are merely jumping on the bandwagon. There is nothing to discuss going forward.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Many Many moons ago....

I suggested that Mr Phelps may harbor certain issues regarding his own sexuality (2008). Well lo and behold everything comes to pass, turns out here is an article that can now go in the article (published and therefore not original research). [BLP violation redacted. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)] 86.176.21.174 (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It is all speculation from a woman with an ax to grind. Bielle (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Calvinism

We've been over this here. In order for Phelps to be categorized as a Calvinist, we need reliable sources to say as much. So far we only have him calling himself an Old School Baptist and saying he holds to the "Five Points of Calvinism" and holding some Calvinist beliefs. --JFH (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

He explicitly identifies as a Calvinist; it is not up to us to judge his accuracy or sincerity. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
He is not a reliable source on the matter. It is up to reliable sources to judge his accuracy. --JFH (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
If you check Google Books with "Fred Phelps" and "Calvinism" or "Calvinist", you come up with a number of books which acknowledge him as a Calvinist, albeit most of them naturally denounce him as a bad or mistaken or deluded or false Calvinist, just as most sources denounce him as a bad or mistaken or deluded or false Christian. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Then please add a sourced statement to the article. Categorization is to follow article content. --JFH (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 October 2013

In the states considering laws section there is Texas. Texas has no clickable link. The link for texas is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas. Just was skimming over and saw this. Hope it helps! Andrewevans48 (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Under the heading "Phelps in the Media": ″A Song for Fred" by canadian heavy metal band Torture for Pleasure [2] is references Fred Phelps, his church and his beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torture1 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Is he alive?

Question as asked. I do not follow this group closely, but has this gentlemen been seen alive in the past six month or so? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 13:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure somebody has seen him, but if you are asking to determine how Wikipedia should categorize him, plz see Category:Living people. The guidance there indicates that, barring any reliable sources which state otherwise, we assume he remains alive until his 90th birthday (about 6 more years), at which time, barring any sources either way, he should go to Category:Possibly living people. Roberticus talk 13:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I am fairly sure he has not made any public appearances of late. I am willing to be corrected. I had not idea we had a category of Possibly Living People. Imagine that. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 09:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Apparently he's dying. And his own church seems to have excommunicated him (!!). http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/03/15/fred-phelps-founder-of-the-god-hates-fags-westboro-baptist-church-is-on-the-edge-of-death/ (Salkafar, 03-16-2014)

Requested move 16 March 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: IAR Non-admin closure, as this is not going to be moved from the looks of it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Fred Phelps → Fred W. Phelps – To avoid confusion with Olympian Michael Phelps' dad, M. Fred Phelps. 76.105.96.92 (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Date of Death?

CNN is reporting the date is 11:15 pm, Wednesday the 19th [9], while the Houston Chronicle is reporting "shortly after midnight" on Thursday the 20th [10]. There needs to be some clarification of this, and what date to put for his death in the article. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Excommunication

The information regarding his supposed excommunication is a bit confusing. For one, the source is his son Nate, who is known to be estranged from both the church and family - how can he then be considered a reliable source? Second, he gives the date of communication as being in August, but the article then goes on to say that Phelps' final sermon was delivered in September. Congregations aren't generally in the practice of allowing excommunicated members to enter the church, much less give the sermon. I would suggest that the allegation of excommunication (and the timing thereof), sourced only to an estranged son with no known firsthand knowledge of the situation, should be stricken until independently verified. 97.68.84.119 (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

His son is the person saying Fred was excommunicated, but that statement has been covered in many verifiable sources. Since we don't seem to be able to establish that he was actually excommunicated, it would be appropriate for this article to mention Nate's claim and the church's refusal to respond. Ivanvector (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
In news stories today, it seemed the son was backtracking a bit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Cause of death

@Connormah: I updated the Infobox with the correct parameter name (death_cause, not cause_of_death), and it summarizes what's in the article (see Fred Phelps § Death). If you want to remove it from the Infobox, you have to remove it from the article, though there was already a battle earlier on that subject, so I'd suggest you discuss it first. Until then, the Infobox should say the same as the body of the article. The "no natural causes" thing is a policy peculiarity of the "Deaths in ..." Wikipedia articles only, AFAIK. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church: In Their Own Words, Anti-Defamation League, 2006-06-21, retrieved 2006-12-14
  2. ^ www.tortureforpleasure.com
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fred_Phelps/Archive_6&oldid=1136277415"