![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
There is a video mentioned at the bottom of the page with a broken link, "America's most hated family." I found the video split into parts starting at:
Please update the link, the video was interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpdesmond ( talk • contribs) 11:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
i did a quick scan and i don't really see anything about the recent $11 million awarded to a father of a fallen soldier whose funeral had been picketed by WBC. a jury levied pretty heavy punitive damages against the WBC, and it could have serious consequences for the HATE GROUP (yes i am using the term HATE GROUP, since the WBC is considered such by the US government). it's a pretty serious moment in the WBC timeline, and i'm not sure if it's in the article, but if it is there it needs to be made more prominent, as it's presently either not mentioned or buried . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.38.184 ( talk) 15:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
after doing a more thorough check, it's mentioned once, under the "activities" section. a single sentence, buried at the end of the paragraph in the middle of the "activities and statements" section. no mention in the "legal responses" area? yeah ok that makes sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.50.181 ( talk) 18:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I personally think that it was a good idea to fine the WBC because they are a hate group really working under Satan's orders. Even the children of the cult members are taught to spread hatred. Angie Y. 04:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I've been seeing quite a bit of vandalism on this site because it got brought up in the news recently. I think that its probably a good idea to lock it from new users till the story blows over a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.4.217 ( talk) 04:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I dont believe it should be a big deal that we include "Hate Group" in the article, as they shown holding up signs that say they "Hate" and there premier website has "Hate" right in the name, so nobody from the group should be offended as they they are very open about being a hate group, Thank You (~~dan102001~~)
Don't use hate group in the first sentence of the article. It violates the Neutral policy that wikipedia has. Yes, I know it is really a "hate group" but stick to the policy and don't call it a hate group. Be politically correct and call it a religous group or a movement group.
screw being politically correct, I am sorry but making sure we don't hurt thier feelings is not imprortant, they have no feelings, they called the Amish girls whores, they ARE a hate group, wikipedia should tell the truth, I don't think wikipedia has a political correct policy, so don't add it!
Whether your feelings are that they are a hate group or not is for you to decide not for entranced into the article. It should not be mentioned as a hate group in the first sentenced though it should be mentioned that they are considered a hate group as it is later in the introduction. I don't like them either but the article should still remain as NPOV as possible - usmarinesjz 08/15/2007 12:48(UTC)
WBC does not hide their opinions, the label hate group is only useful for groups that hide their opinions and actions. FWIW, WBC is completely non violent. Geo8rge 20:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
This group is definetly a hate-movement group. They should be condemed for breach of the peace. They should actually just be called the Ku Klux Klan. Except instead of 'african-americans' they go after Gays and people who disagree with them.
Ok heres the deal we should either leave it at hate or delete the article they are very blunt with the fact that they are a HATE GROUP we are not offendig anybody
It currently says "Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) is a U.S. church group headed ... " But as a matter of style, maybe ditch the word "group" and just call it a church. My 2 cents. 69.154.178.37 03:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Sweet, I can hav a hate group but wiki would never call it a hate group... Hitler didn't kill anyone, amirite, lol
They quite clearly meet the wikipedia definition of a hate group. To wit: "A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates hate, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other designated sector of society" -from Wikipedia's own entry for "hate group." I've edited the page accordingly. ~JustADude
-- NZUlysses 05:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Of course you can call a hate group a hate group. Not to do so is to misrepresent reality. - Nunh-huh 15:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
i think osama would think this is a hate group.i hope they go to iran and protest( Esskater11 15:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC))
From Wiki's NPOV: "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly." There are no conflicting perspectives: they ARE a hate group. They advocate hate. Freely, openly, on their own. They do nothing else BUT advocate hate. There are no existing arguments to say they aren't a hate group. Therefor, it does not violate neutrality to call them a hate group. Azuaron 03:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.45.251 ( talk)
I disagree the WBC should be labeled a "hate group", if anything because as far as I've seen the label of "hate group" generally only applies to secular organizations. Although the KKK may consider itself a Christian organization, it does not practice its own religion, nor is it a religious sect. The problem with labeling a religious sect, like the WBC, a "hate group" on account of their preaching hatred and intolerance of homosexuality, is that by the same standards it would follow that all religious sects that preach or promote hatred and intolerance of homosexuality would also qualify as "hate groups". Why not label all religious sects that preach or promote hatred and intolerance of anyone at all "Hate groups"? Considering that all fundamentalist, extremist, ultra-conservative, or fringe religious sects qualify as "hate groups" to some degree, on account of promoting the hatred and intolerance of some group of people, whether publicly with poster board, or behind closed doors among their congregation, that's a lot of editing to be done here at Wikipedia, now that someone has to place the words "hate group" in the first line describing a significant portion of the world’s religions and their various sects. The difference here, between the fundamentalist, ultra-conservative, Westborough Baptist Church, and say for instance, fundamentalist, ultra-conservative Baptists in general, is that the WBC is deliberately trying to attract attention to itself and advertising their beliefs in the public forum, whether people want to hear them or not. Most of the other fundamentalist, ultra-conservative, religious sects, sans the various Muslim extremists of course, generally keep to promoting their hatred and intolerance of homosexuality, behind church doors, among themselves.
I would also like to point out that neither the Encyclopedia Britannica, nor Google’s definition search, nor even Wikipedia itself, chooses to define the Ku Klux Klan as a "hate group". In fact, you’d be hard pressed to even find the word “hate” used at all. ( Ppisarczyk ( talk) 07:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC))
I would not only call this a hate group, but I would also term this as a cult or a dangerous religious group. Not only is it hateful, it's exclusive, insular and controlling - if you don't do exactly as they say, you're going to hell. Jeanie821 18:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
WBC is a hate group by their own definition. They are also a small local cult of personality with worldwide scope through more than a dozen Internet websites with "Hate" in the name. Fred Phelps name should be included in the discription of this group since it's all about Phelps misuse of scriptural condemnation of sin to preach his doctrine of HATE and hatefulness. Although the Phelps organization calls themselves a "church", they are anti-Christian, anti-Jew, and anti-everybody but Fred Phelps and his family. Phelps and WBC should be charged as an organized criminal hate group and taken out of business under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Dr. B. R. Lang ( talk) 15:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I really don't think people are understanding objectivity and its role in WP. The WBC, at heart, is a religious "fundamentalist" or "extremist" sect, and is similar to any other church, with its own agenda, political views/motives, and yes, cushy business loopholes. It is objective to use those words to describe them, and later in the intro or article, inform the reader that they are considered by many to be a hate group, etc. To just outright call them that is subjective...its YOUR opinion. They think they're doing god's work, and doing the right thing. It doesn't matter that you or I or the majority of the country feels that they're awful people, and that some of you are of the opinion that they should be killed or raped by osama bin laden's pirate ghost, because opinions aren't relevent here unless presented as such. Taking the opinion of the majority or the government and declaring it as fact is not only incorrect, its a dangerous practice that's led to almost every persecution in history. There have been times before where people who were morally/scientifically correct in their protests and arguments were labeled as heretics or monsters or the ever popular "unpatriotic," and later on found to be right. Now, I'm not saying this applies in this case, or at least, I really really hope it doesn't, lol, but the argument stands in support of not condemning something in an objective forum on grounds of someone's opinion, no matter how awful the thing is. The WP page for Satan begins by describing him as an angel or jinn, depending on faith. It doesn't start with, "Satan is the prince of darkness, lord of pain, king of damnation and filth and suffering," because that's someone's or some organization's opinion...some people might really like the guy and think he's alright. So I'm not condoning the WBC and their actions, I'm just saying take your opinions and ranting to a message board, or maybe the facebook group dedicated to it, because they would be better served than here. Present both sides of the story from the middle ground, or the encyclopaedic system doesn't work. Thanks for hearing me out. Ohnoitsthefuzz ( talk) 15:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
You people are idiots. The point of Wikipedia is to give knowledge, not make friends. THEY ARE A HATE GROUP. THEY OPENLY ADMIT THAT THEY ARE A HATE GROUP. Trying to say "Ok, they are a hate group, but dont put that, its mean" is like saying the article on Osama Bin Laden shouldn't say he's a terrorist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.11.77 ( talk) 04:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
If the church said that it was, in wikipedia's POV understanding, primarrly a hate group; the classification would be correctly aplied and justified to the originisation. The memmbers of WBC currently are part of a full-religeon/indipendant religeois sect, addmitably as viable as the Thugee cult, which means that classifing the group in the introduction as a hate group is persacution (ironicly). However, stating that the group [u]complies and ratifies[/u] the classification for being a hate group is perfectly viable and in-keeping with Wiki's POV; meaning that the introduction can read "The Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) is a controversial religious organization headed by Fred Phelps and based in Topeka, Kansas, United States and has activities and views which make the group conform with the classification of a hate group". But my main concern is that this article may become to critical for a enciclopedic article, the constant undertone of judjement means that this article is bias and could be classed as unfair to WBC. It is not Wikipedia's intention or goal to stop these bigots; but supply BALANCED and FAIR information on the group- never mind that doing so go's against all common decency and upstanding. TheJackle ( talk) 23:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
My main objection is that saying the SPLC calls them a hate group is implied that it makes the statement true. The SPLC calls everyone who doesn't agree with them hate groups and their statements have no legal standing what so ever. Frankly if there were two SPLCs, they would probably call each other hate groups for both being racist against white people. And as is often the case with the SPLC, that statement would be unfounded. You can't use one bad and biased organizations statements to condemn another one. It' just bad tactics. There IS a legal definition of a hate group and this group does not match it since they do not actively engage in organized violence. (The key word there is organized. What a few loner redneck members do is outside the radar legally.) ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.88.188.113 ( talk) 13:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Under Criticism, the stament "[i]n 2004, Libertarian columnist Keith R. Wood suggested that the Westboro Baptists are actually trying to create sympathy for homosexual activism and to engender anti-Christian sentiment due to the offensive nature of their activities and Phelps' own statements regarding tactics" should be removed. According to WP:V, "Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources." No matter what you opinion on WBC's work may be, this specific claim is definitely "exceptional" and would require a very strong source. Not only does this statement not have a source, but assuming it is refering to the same source that I'm disputing here, the Keith R. Wood in question is an opinion columnist at an online-only newspaper, which I would makes the source indistinguishable from any other person's blog. This person, as far as I could tell after a reasonable Google search, does not appear to have any expertise in this area, and does not cite anything to back up this belief (or others in the same article such as claiming that WBC is funded by NAMBLA), so I can't imagine that this would be considered a reliable source by a neutral observer. Since I cannot edit this page, I am requesting deletion of this unsourced statement. Thanks! -- Drake Maijstral 01:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I placed a citation needed tag. I could not find the article or very much about the author. At some point I suspect the link will be removed, but cannot be sure there is no citation. Geo8rge 16:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Not sure why it took so long. [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.247.214 ( talk) 03:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
How on earth does this come under "Project Judaism"?? Is it because he hates Jews, too? (If it would annoy him, please just ignore my question & leave it under PJ. (-: ) FlaviaR 18:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I will. Phelps was cited by the Anti-Defamation League for his numerous anti-semitic comments [1]: On General Wesley Clark and John Kerry (of Jewish descent):
"His Christ-rejecting, God-hating Jew blood bubbled to the surface. Yes, like his boss [John] Kerry, Clark is a Jew….That these two turds are Jews would not matter—except when they ask for supreme political power & spit in the Face of God, pushing for same-sex marriage, threatening to bring down God’s wrath on us as on Sodom—then some inquiries are in order. Beware! ‘Jews killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men; forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins always; for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.” 1 Thess. 2:14.’ Apostate fags & Jews certain to bring God’s wrath.”"
"Homosexuals and Jews dominated Nazi Germany...just as they now dominate this doomed U.S.A....The Jews now wander the earth despised, smitten with moral and spiritual blindness by a divine judicial stroke...And god has smitten Jews with a certain unique madness, whereby they are an astonishment of heart, a proverb, and a byword (the butt of jokes and ridicule) among all peoples whither the Lord has driven and scattered them...Jews, thus perverted, out of all proportion to their numbers energize the militant sodomite agenda...The American Jews are the real Nazis (misusers and abusers of governmental power) who hate God and the rule of law."
Seems like Judaism project would be interested in this. Benjiboi 11:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)