This page 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.

This is a talk page archive'. Comments from Talk:Fred Phelps from between January 2006 and August, 2006 that have failed to garner replies during August, 2006 or later have been moved to below.

Man, it's really hard for me to not delete everything on this page and just..ugh..write what I think about this sick individual. I can't wait for him to die.

People who are smart enough to sneak into a block-size compound with ten-feet-tall walls are also smart enough to realize that it would be detrimental to an anti-Phelps cause to make him a martyr.

Also, I'm going to guess that the family will hold his funeral inside their compound, probably burying him there, too. This way, anyone who tries to protest it in a manner that would emotionally affect the attendees of the funeral can be sued and/or arrested for trespassing. The Topeka Police will be on high alert on that day on account of the bomb threats to the compound to allow access to the inside.

I'm really hoping that we can protest it directly, as he did to Matthew Shepard. If the adherents to the Phelps Theology are consistent, this would be fair and correspond to the Ten Commandments.

Oh wait, the Jews received the Commandments so they probably don't care about murder or adultery or the "Golden Rule"...

Forgot about that. -- 68.110.21.142 11:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that proves that Phelps is "A former candidate for the Democratic nomination for governor of Kansas"? I note that it hasn't been cited. and I've been unable to find evidence of his candidacy online. As such I feel it should be deleted.

Well, you must not have search very hard. Here's a link: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21229 As a Kansan, I specifically remember his 1998 bid for Governor, and all the controversy that surrounded it. User:Burroughsks88 16:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

After accidentally rolling back the addition of this information, I moved it down to the Personal Beliefs section and expanded it a bit. The original wording gave the impression that Phelps played a significant role in his campaign (and was actually supported by the Democratic Party). Also added the reference. Interesting — and surprising — find. Tijuana Brass ^¡Épa! 23:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Not accepted as a member of the Democratic Party? What is that? The Democratic party doesn't decide who it's members are, rather people decide what their party affiliation is. Some of his views probably aren't mainstream with some Democrats, but he still is one. Like I mentioned earlier, I am from Kansas and I did not know who Fred Phelps was until he ran for Governor. There are many people who think of him as a political figure, and establishing his race for the Governor's office in the introduction would help many people recognize and automatically identify who he is. User:Burroughsks88 01:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you'll reread it, it never says that Phelps was not accepted as a member of the DP. It reads: "However, despite his claimed affiliation, Phelps' ideology lies far from the goals and ideals typically embraced by Democrats." In any case Phelps' notoriety comes from his radical religious ideology; his attention-grabbing bid for office is collorary to that. He is far more recognized for his picketing and "preaching". I disagree that it should be added to the introduction, and based on the reversions of other editors, it would be wise to discuss things further than than trying to force it in. Tijuana Brass ^¡Épa! 20:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That section added to his Personal Belifes section is already mentioned in the Political Affilations section, so I have removed it. User:Burroughsks88 15:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"He is also known for interrupting the funerals of servicemen with protests against not only the war in Iraq but the servicemen's devotion to duty as well. He claims events such as the September 11 attacks and Hurricane Katrina are caused by God because of this hatred."

He is not protesting the war in Iraq, if anything he is pro-war as he sees it as God punishing America. This should be altered to reflect this.

202.82.33.202 07:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)What's the big deal about "free speech"? Sure, picket the home of some murderer like Henry Kissinger, but lay off the family of an Iraq casualty. The difference is that Henry Kissinger is a public figure, and Robertson v. Flynt applies, if indirectly.

If he hates America and thinks God has condemned it for supporting homosexuality, why doesnt he leave then? I dont see why he'd stay in a country that "enables fags" and which God hates. He's just an idiot on all counts, and its people like him and his entourage who make Christians no longer accepted as credible by many people.

202.82.33.202 07:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)More seriously, is the USA having a mass psychotic breakdown? I live in China, and the news gets weirder all the time. I learned about this Fred Phelps character just yesterday in an article in the International Herald Tribune, and all I can say is, you people all right back there?

If Phelps was gaining a great deal of public support, then your fear would be justified. As it happens, he's routinely outnumbered by veterans who show up to military funerals on their motorcycles to counter-protest. Phelps is so far out there, I don't think you could even find a Klansman who'd support him.

I'm not sure if I should add this or not, but mostly in response to Phelps, Illinois Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn announced on 10 January 2006 a proposal for a law banning any and all protests at funerals, from half an hour before the funeral begins to half an hour after it ends, with a 300 foot "zone" to exist around any funeral, which protesters would NOT be allowed to enter. WBBM 780 AM Radio article on the proposal. -- JohnDBuell 03:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Second article link, from the Chicago Tribune: [1] -- JohnDBuell 12:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

If this get's added to the article (if it hasn't already) it should be mentioned that such bans are very likely unconstitutional. Hate Monger FP may be totally and completely offensive, but he is still protected under the first ammendment. (edit: Forgot my sig) Lordkazan 14:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

That's why the Patriot Guard got started, because they have just as much a 1st Amendment Right to go and stage counter protests against Phelps and his gang at funerals. When it comes to the ultimate constitutinality of the ban, I'd say let the courts decide. It's sad that we need such a ban, but you have hate mongers with no human deceney or compassion like Fred Phelps and his family out there, and perhaps the only way to keep them away is to make it a serious crime to do so.

JesseG 20:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I should point out, that legally, freedom of speech doesn't extend over speech that causes harm both mentally and phsyically and is untruthful. That's why one can't yell fire in the movie theatres or run around calling mother teresa a prostitute. fred phelp's protests at funerals falls within those categories as they do cause stress and emotional harm to grieving families and relatives. Not to mention they can, indirectly, slander the recently deceased's reputation. While a direct ban is unconstitutional, there is already a legal foundation that is consitutional.

dts 10:18, 6/6/06

This is a good article and is generally well referenced, but there are several critical statements that lack sourcing. There is, for example, a whole paragraph on him shotgunning a dog to death, while drunk and stoned, because it deficated on his lawn. What would be the best course of action? I am considering Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates. -- Oldak Quill 20:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• That incident is mentioned here - http://blank.org/addict/chapter4.html exolon 23:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

In reading this article I noticed that the citations in the References section stop at 31, but there are at least three times as many numbered citations in the article itself. Why is this? Am I missing something? 24.16.241.81 06:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Erica

In the criminal record section the following is mentioned: 1996: Two counts of [censored] but the 3 sources cited make ne mention of this. Is there a seperate reference for this or is it just some one guessing that a guy like this probably enjoys [censored]? It would certainly make the one's who are loyal to him a smidge more sympathetic.

Some of the above text was censored per WP:LIVING (the exact fact isn't as important, as the fact we've done a lousy job at sourcing this article). -- Rob 01:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Addicted To Hate: The Full Story of the False Prophet Fred Phelps ---

Fred Phelps Expose'

IMPORTANT NOTES FROM THE ANTI-PHELPS UNDERGROUND

PLEASE MAKE 10 COPIES OF THIS THIS FILE AND GIVE THEM TO THOSE WHO FIND THE ACTIVITIES OF FRED PHELPS UNCONSCIONABLE. <snip>

Mark believes that Fred Phelps, no longer able to hate and abuse his adult children if he hopes to keep them near, by necessity now must turn all his protean anger outward against his community. Mark has decided to tell the truth about his father so that others will be warned. He and his brother have now come forward with specific and detailed stories, alarming tales, ones that could be checked and have been verified. Mark's testimony supports Nate's previously, and both men's statements have been confirmed by a third Phelps' child. In addition, the Capital- Journal has uncovered documents which substantiate this testimony, and interviewed dozens of relevant witnesses who have confirmed much of this information. "One of my earliest memories...," the voice in the phone pauses, painful to remember: "was the big ol' German shepherd that belonged to our neighbors. One day it was in our yard and my father went out and blew it apart with his shotgun." http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/atohate.htm

Addicted to Hate: The Fred Phelps Story Chapter Four: Dog Days for the Pastor

<snip>

In later years, Phelps was convinced he was alone in his church with only his children to listen because those who'd opened Westboro were too weak for the harsh truth of God: that He hated sinners as well as the sin; and therefore His elect must also hate the sinners-even those who might be assembled with them. If the local Baptist churches were still unsure about the new fire and brimstone brother from Arizona, shooting his neighbor's dog didn't help. Aside from etching one of his children's earliest memories, shotgun-blasting the large German shepherd that had wandered into his unfenced yard quickly got the novice pastor notice in his community. The incident was discussed in the papers, and the dog's owner sued the arrogant minister. Fred defended himself and won, an action his son Mark believes may have encouraged his father's turn to the law.

But the irrationality and violence of the act sent the last of his congregation scurrying back to Eastside. For weeks after the shooting, one church member recalls, someone placed signs on the lawn in front of Westboro at night that declared prophetically: "Anyone who'd stoop to killing a dog someday will mistake a child for a dog." Soon it was clear no one wanted any part of Fred's god not if he hated like Fred. And that posed a problem for the Pastor Phelps: he still owed 32 dollars a week on the bonds for the church, and no one was paying for his hate show on Sundays. http://www.rslevinson.com/gaylesissues/features/collect/phelps/bl_phelpschapter04.htm

NiftyDude 23:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

http://cjonline.com/indepth/phelps/archive.shtml NiftyDude 23:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Please let us know the moment this pig dies so we can demonstrate at his funeral.

There was a flower on the monument of Debbie L. Valgos on findagrave.com that said, She's waiting for you, Fred. Yes, not only is she waiting, but so are Matthew Sheppard, Pope John Paul II, Fred Rogers, the soliders of the funerals Phelps' group desecrated, and everyone else Phelps has attacked over the years.

JesseG 21:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

How is a picture of what the guy actually currently looks like POV?

I think what Jibbajabba meant is that it's not a "neutral" picture, in the sense that you wouldn't consider one of the pictures of Dubya as a monkey an appropriate picture for his article, particularly as a header picture. Regardless of how we feel about Phelps, neutrality needs to be the standard for pictures as well, as difficult as it can potentially be to define. Deadsalmon 04:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly w hat I was saying. For example, you wouldn't allow Adolf Hitler's top picture to be of him during one of those infamous speeches with his hands to his face. And for the record, please don't accuse me of being a Phelps supporter - I just think it's unfair to make sure Hitler, Bush, etc have NPOV pages while this guy had a picture that even comments on its talk page said makes him look like a demon. Jibbajabba 20:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Total Wikipedia mindset, which is great (and hard) to maintain in these articles. Phelps's picture can be nice as can be.. his words expose the truth of his idiocy.

Kether83 11:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This article cites "Addicted to Hate" quite a few times, yet the text is located on a website that provides no information about who they are or why we should trust what is on their website. I must question the motives of the website when it has no main homepage and admits posting the content it has may be illegal(?), urging people to make their own backup copiese, so I have added the {{fiction}} template. Jibbajabba 20:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that the article has been tagged with a "hoax" note at the top. Could anyone please tell me the reason behind this?-- SigmaX54 21:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It appears the last two entries regarding Mr. Rogers and the Sago Disaster have been called into question, as they appear out of context. I am not saying whether it is right or not. Someone need to investigate this. I hope this is some right-wing nutjob's prank. Arbiteroftruth 02:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why they would be considered a hoax, both are well documented on his/their website. Bdve 04:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'll put up links to sources for both and remove the tag. Wisco 04:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oops. Someone beat me to the sources. I'll lose the tag. Wisco 04:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you had looked at the section above, I put a clear explanation of why the tag was placed there (originally the fiction tag and then the hoax because I was unfamiliar with which tag would be appropriate). The "Addicted to Hate" material is what was in question. Jibbajabba 07:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, I don't know why they went with blank.org. As far as I can tell, the whole 1994 special section is available from the original publisher here. I'll resource it (assuming I'm right), but not tonight - it's 2am my time, so I'm off to bed ;) Wisco 07:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• OK, now I know why they went with blank.org. The references are to a book ny one of the authors of the 1994 special section. Most of the material here is in the section, but a few are not. If it's any help, the book was part of a lawsuit, was entered into evidence, and became public domain. Court record here. Wisco 19:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one that originally posted the stuff about Mister Rogers and The Sago Mine Disaster. Did I do something wrong? (I'm new to this) NiftyDude 01:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• No, you nailed it. Wisco 02:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The article itself is excellent, but do you think we are at the point yet, where we could split the page somehow? It's becoming a bit of a difficult read as it is; failing the above suggestion, some formatting changes might be in order. - Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 06:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

1) It is quite rude to delete a photo and not address it aside from a hidden comment essentially ordering others to follow one's wishes without discussion. You claim the photo is NPOV. I ask, how can a photo be NPOV? This is how Phelps looks. It is unedited. Because he is smiling in the pulpit photo? Does this mean we must have happy looking pictures of everyone? The fact of the matter is that Phelps is not a man to smile often. The pulpit photo is essentially false representation. Not only that, but it is old, and by comparing the two photos, outdated in terms of accurately representing Phelps. The only other recent photos of Phelps I could find are terribly blurry.

2) The information on Bart McQueary is not inaccurate. He did deal porn, and until he realized that his webpage was still accessible and blocked it using robots.txt, his old business pages were visible online. McQueary claims that he is no longer a porn salesman. I also included a tidbit about his children's charity operations and health scare.

Removed the link to his website, which now only redirects to his personal Myspace page, and contains no zealotry described in the paragraph.-- Burri 22:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

3) I have removed Mr. Drain's name from the supporters list, as he is not an external supporter, but an actual member of the group

4) I have re-included, with explanation, the support for Phelps from the Aryan Nation, KKK, and Christian Identity movement 65.68.74.59 05:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, your question about the photo was discussed; you can find it just above this thread. I'd disagree with your assertation that the photo is too "old" for use on Wikipedia, as Phelps does not look significantly different since that photo was taken in 2001. Calling it "false representation" is a stretch too; the photo was taken from Phelps' own website. Additionally, you still have not provided documentation for support for Phelps from any of the three groups you have named; that's a potentially libelous charge and it needs to be cited to a reputable source (see WP:V). Same goes for the Bart McQueary content. Keep in mind that this isn't a condemnation of the material you've added, but rather of its lack of documentation. If you can follow up with sources — and we're glad to help, if you'd like — we're happy to leave it in. In the meantime, it needs to be removed. Deadsalmon 06:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

If we could get permission to use one of these?

http://www.pensitoreview.com/images/photo-phelps-he's-gay.jpg

http://www.rickross.com/images/phelps2.jpg

http://www.wearemichigan.com/concerns/phelps/images/ph1.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NiftyDude ( talk •  contribs) 12:26, 18 January 2006.

Where did you have in mind using them? It depends where you plan on using them in the article; if you're suggesting replacements for the lead-in picture at the top, the second would probably be best candidate — the other two aren't bad, but the first is not of Phelps alone, and the third is a somewhat atypical picture, only in the sense that he's wearing cold weather clothes. I do think the picture is fine how it stands, though. On a related note, it seems odd to me that the article has no pictures of Phelps picketing. With the great number available, it shouldn't be hard to find one. Has anyone tried contacting Westboro's web site to see if they would release one for use on Wikipedia? Deadsalmon 19:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The second picture, which is also from 2004, used to be the lead in pic, before someone deleted it. I believe that it is also from local access TV in Topeka, so it ought to be fine for usage, if we could either find another copy that the RRI hasn't edited (note the lines and shadow around the pic) or edit the RRI's to remove the "glitz." Personally, I think that it's more suited; although some may not see it, Phelps' physical condition has deteriorated since that 2001 photo. I saw him at the DNC back in 2004 and he'd gone significantly downhill in terms of physical appearance; his face has become much more severely wrinkled and he's lost quite a bit of weight. It only seems right that the lead in pic be a representation of what he looks like now, since as opposed to, say, someone like Mae West, whose fame came at a specific time period in her life and not in her older years, Phelps' current fame remains constant. 70.241.23.231 01:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Then it sounds like the most appropriate picture. I'd support a change. Deadsalmon 04:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted this back to Niftydudes last version. TimmyBIsCool removed large sections to new pages, but failed to leave summary paragraphs and links to the new pages in the article. Without these, the information in the removed sections cannot be found from the article. 84.68.221.100 17:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

So, Jibba, I'm curious. I did about 95% of the research on this article, wrote the majority of the original chunk of this article, did all of the original footnoting to get it FA status. Apparently, my work was good enough that it got FA. But you seem to think that it isn't quite good enough. I realize that your work is subject to butchery here on Wiki, but the fact that my work was given FAS seems to indicate that it was good work and that I know what I am doing and talking about. While there may be debate about the picture, although I don't see why it can't be in the article at all, your constant re-wording and dismissive "No..." on the edit comments belies a serious attitude of condescension. I would appreciate it if you would bring your beef to the History page instead of clandestinely editing hard work that I have done and assuming stance of superiority. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.242.12.153 ( talk •  contribs) 02:24, 20 January 2006.

Okay, well first of all, there have been numerous comments on both this page and the talk page for the image in question, addressing the fact that it obviously makes Phelps look like a demonic psychopath. Second, if you're the author then why aren't you logging in to edit the page? I know that at least one part of the introduction (the part about services in the basement) is false, but in any case, the focus in the lead-in should be Fred Phelps, not the group he founded. He's best known for being its leader, yes, but that's not the focus, he is. And where does the part about "90%" being related to him come from? Likewise, I don't think Phelps called himself a prophet, even if his daughter likened him to one in a video clip.

You're also severely overreacting considering this is a small, small chunk of the article and you seem to be the only one who disagrees with my edits. Jibbajabba 07:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Please stop putting the part about the basement in this article, his daughter has stated that this claim is, in her words, "flat-out false". Jibbajabba 21:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Margie may say that the claim is false, but WBC says a lot of things. I do believe--and I will admit being wrong if it turns out to be the case-- that the Sky Interview patently shows that the WBC meeting hall is in the basement of Phelps' home. If it isn't the basement, then perhaps "wing" would be more appropriate; unless it's been moved lately, the actual "church" of Westboro Baptist Church is located in Phelps' home. TimmyBIsCool 21:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, where did you read that one of the Phelps girls said that it was "flat-out false"? TimmyBIsCool 21:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It was in an e-mail, actually. I had contacted them about information in the Wikipedia article and showed her the show changes link for one of my edits because they understandably get a lot of hate mail and she wasn't sure of my intentions. i apologize for misquoting though, I was thinking of something else - her words were, "The edit is great. The talk about our services and our church being in the basement of his house is simply a lie! The way you have edited is neutral and fine. Thank you!" Since I wasn't trying to debate beliefs or cause problems (I don't agree with them but care about WP's integrity), she was quite nice.

But regardless of whether it's true or not... I don't think the question of where services are conducted is necessary in the lead-in of Rev. Phelps' article. It's one of those cases where it's NPOV information used in a POV way - regardless of the message the person tries to send, people are a lot less likely to listen to someone if you tell them his group is an alleged (by whom?) cult based out of his basement and 90% of the members are related to him. His preachings are enough to turn people off IMHO. Jibbajabba 23:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

You have to seriously be joking me? You went to one of Phelp's children who still likes him and then are trying to cite her as an unbiased source? 65.125.133.211 14:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Margie Phelps says a lot of things. Most of them not true. Has WBC built itself a chapel, then? If so, it would be of interest for the section of the WBC article about the compound.

The continuing refusal of Wiki to use the dictionary as a basis for hardline definitions is one of the reasons that many in the internet and world community continue to dismiss it and not take it seriously. Any dictionary definition of a cult, when applied to Westboro, comes up positive. Any refusal to acknowledge that people perceive it as a cult is blatant ignorance and stubbornness.

As for who sees it as a cult:

• http://www.apologeticsindex.org/111-westboro-baptist-church/2/
• http://www.religionnewsblog.com/13172/-Westboro-Baptist-Church--Bill-would-limit-protests-at-funerals
• http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/6/22220/02926
• http://www.utterwonder.com/archives/2005/06/fashion_highs_a.php
• http://www.rslevinson.com/gaylesissues/features/collect/guest/bldriley01.htm
• http://www.infidelguy.com/ftopicp-309933.html
• http://www.skeptictank.org/mghate1.htm
• http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:I7Qb_b5PwykJ:www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1553499/posts+%22westboro+baptist+church%22+cult&hl=en
• http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2005/12/hateful-protesters-show-up-at-fallen.html
• http://www.rickross.com/reference/westboro/westboro1.html
• http://www.cultnews.net/comment?linkID=11281
• http://www.nndb.com/people/908/000025833/
• http://forums.military.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/89610255/m/6890006240001
• http://www.plattsburghforpeace.com/court.htm
• http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051220/COLUMNIST17/512200372
• http://www.baptistwatch.org/

And that's being conservative.

I also defy you to tell anyone that lives in Topeka that Phelps isn't a cult leader. TimmyBIsCool 04:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

That's an impressive collection of sources, but it's missing the point. At least half of the organizations/individuals you listed either have a bone to pick with Phelps (as most of us do), or another reason to degrade and insult him. The number of people labeling the WBC a cult is wholly irrelevant — it's the meaning of the word that matters, and "cult" carries a clear negative, POV connotation to it. The OCRT explains it well, if you'd like to take a look; among other things, the article explains how the Associated Press, among other large organizations, decided to not use the term because "the negative associations linked to the word are so intense that its use will automatically lead to confusion and misunderstanding." A good general guideline to follow on WP is to use the definitions groups give themselves. Deadsalmon 08:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Connotation of irrelevant - this is supposed to be encyclopedic, which means the denotation rules: Dictionary.com - Where or not there is a negative connotation, it is a cult.

---

Within Christian circles, a cult is defined as any church claiming to be Christian, yet has teachings that contradict or pervert the basic doctrines of the faith such as: sinfulness of man; salvation; the deity of Jesus, the Trinity, literal and eternal places of eternal torment or bliss (Heaven or Hell); the Atonement; and the virgin birth, sinless life, crucifixion, resurrection, and bodily ascension of Christ. A church that denies or perverts any of these will invariably claim to be the only way of salvation. Since its doctrine is cultic and perverted, it follows that its practices are as well. We've seen ample proof of this fact. Mr. Phelps' group more than meets the qualifications for a cult labeling.

---

You're missing the point. The Westboro Baptist Church was clearly created to provide legal cover to Phelps, allowing him to hide his sources of revenue and at the same time providing tax exemption. The majority of members are his own family. It isn't a cult, because it's just a scam. I believe that it's a front for some organization which supplies him with the money to operate.

However, let me also mention that your definition of "cult" covers every Christian church prior to acceptance of the Nicene Creed by the Roman Catholic Church, because they didn't believe in the Trinity as it is now described.

You see the problem? When you start with applying labels, you find that they stick in places you didn't expect them to.

I know that WBC has denounced West Virginia and the coal miners, but the recently added paragraph in the beginning of the page looks questionable due to grammar and I can't find anything on a "God Hates West Virginia" campaign. -- Medico Dinamico

I don't know if he's used a phrase like "God Hates West Virginia", though he's done it with homosexuals, America, Sweden, and Canada... and I'd think it's implied in "God Hates America". He has gone to West Virginia to picket the miners' funerals, and if this and this are any indication, I'd say he hates W.V. Jibbajabba 23:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Is he saying God hates West Virginia for suffering Catholics to live? Ruby 00:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I do understand the reason for the qualifier, however, rest assured, this man's group is a cult. The author stated that Mr. Phelps claims that salvation is only possible through him. If true, that alone qualifies him as a cult leader. Even if he doesn't teach this, it's evident he either doesn't know the Bible or he knows it but doesn't care what it really says. As a fundamentalist Christian myself, I find this guy highly offensive and his deliberate twisting of Scriptures to be without excuse. His claim that "God hates homosexuals", if true, would seriously alter the doctrine of salvation. Since salvation is one of the core definers of Christianity, and he's perverting it, he and his group are most deserving of the cult label. Come to think of it, given his heretical teaching on God and homosexuals, he would have to claim that salvation is only possible through his church, since no other church would accept this teaching. He's also calling God a liar, which I'm sure doesn't impress God one bit.

Yup, this is defininlty a cult. Where did he call God a liar, by the way? I would like to know.

I read this tidbit on the section for Canada: "There are also rumors that Phelps was once arrested (but not charged) for obscene conduct with another man, and that this prompted his anti-gay stance." Where are these rumors from? -- Medico Dinamico

Would not surprise me one bit.. he wasn't even interested in girls growing up, and hates women... he's undoubtedly a raging homosexual himself.

I know this has nothing to do with the actual article, but I can't fathom how a man can be so consumed by hatred that he dedicates his life to picketing the funerals of gays, American troops killed in Iraq and... I can't even believe this... Mr Rogers. I wish this scum and his entire bigoted church would be wiped from the face of the Earth. Sorry, I had to get that off my chest. Resume your POV/NPOV debating now. -- BlueTruth 02:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps his article should be referenced in external links? Or is it too unencyclopediac?-- Vercalos 22:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Right. Somebody please reference his article.

I'm quite sure someone vandalized this page by altering the phraseology of several lines.

For example: His father, Fred Wade Phelps, was a detective employed by the local railroad (a.k.a. a railroad bull), whose job it was to keep people from illegally riding the rails. Fred recalls his gay father often came home from work "with blood up to his shoulders".

The family were devout members of the Gay Methodist Episcopal Church, South.

Shortly after his mother's death, his maternal great-aunt, Irene Jordan, moved in with the family and became a surrogate motherand lover;

In the interim, Phelps waited around Meridian for the time to come to ship out. He became close friends and lovers with another boy, John Capron, with whom he spent most of his time. Fred introduced John to his sister Martha-Jean, and the three began dating; they would eventually marry.

I'm sure there are more along with others that I think could possibly be but it isn't clear. Regardless, I think this is a good candidate for a page reversion.

I've moved it back to the March 1st entry by Blue Platypus which was the last safe one as far as I can tell. Someone may want to go through and check that. This page should probably also be protected or at least semi-protected. JoshuaZ 04:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a mention of those guys on here, or at least a link to their entry?

I think that it would be good to. Where, though? Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 23:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

that would be good, perhaps a simple mention of recent organized opposition to phelps' protests by the PGR? ThuranX 04:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Is the first entry under supporters confirmed? (IE the Bart McQueary dude).

I went to the link, and it really doesn't appear to me as if that's correct, although I could be wrong.

Just to insert a rare POV comment on my own behalf...

The average life expectancy in the United States is 77. Phelps will be 77 this year. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 09:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Good. I hope he dies in the most painful way possible.

If Fred Phelps says "God hates America", why does he live in it? -l337p4wn

He thinks he can fix America if he gets enough people to listen to him and follow him.-- Vercalos 04:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually his church site claims that its too late to fix America, maybe they really should relocate, unless you notice that the man doesn't subscribe to logic or consistency very much. - Ashhorn 19 april 2006

Heh.. If that's his intention, he's not doing too well on the "win friends and influence people" bit, is he?

Because some other countries wouldn't let these cowards trash the country that gives them the right to say what they say in the first place.

For example, Rev. Jerry Falwell, who is not known his for pro-homosexual views, has been reported as having described Rev. Phelps as a "first-class nut" [2].

The source link doesn't work. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 08:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I received a foward about Phelps...

---

Fred Phelps does not believe what he is doing.

This is a scam.

It's a business. They travel the country, set up websites telling you exactly when they'll be there, and using the most inflammatory statements all over the place, just to get someone to violate their rights for profit. Then they sue the military, the police force that was to protect them, and everyone that is around them for money. This is a sham, and it is a trap to get people sued. Every member of his family is an attorney. Phelps does not break the law. What he does is try to make you break the law by trying to punch your sensibilities about everything you hold dear, and then sue you and everyone municipality around him to the max.

This is a scam.

Whether he believes his posters or not is irrelevent. He's using this as a moneymaking scheme. Lay one finger on him, do one thing that violates him, and he will sue you, and more importantly, the city, the police department, the US Military, and any private property owner he happens to be standing on to make money off of it.

Let's look at the ways he's trying to get you up in a tizzy to violate his civil rights for profit:

• He says G-d Hates Fags, G-d hates the US Govt, that G-d hates the US Military, G-d Hates you, and G-d justifies the killing of others.

Phelps knows that saying 'G-d' and 'Hate' in the same sentence gets people worked up. He knows that. He knows that people have a knee jerk reaction to that.

• He says that the US Govt and the United States are evil. This is another hot button with people who love their country. It is intentional. It is designed to make you take a swing at him. He wants 50k USD from you. He wants a powerball winner to swing at him so he gets 100 million dollars. It's that simple.

• He goes after homosexuals, he goes after people who are making sacrifices. Phelps intentionally targets people that are being victimized, or good people doing their jobs to create more outrage. He kicks people when they're down. He does that so someone will come up and defend them. Then he will sue you.

• His boards are laminated on hardwood, because he pulls them out of trucks at least five times a week. He also puts them in bright colors for attention, and makes absolutely sure that you can read them at all time. He's phishing you. Everyone must know that.

The most telling tale about all of Phelp's behavior is the schedule he keeps, and the company he keeps as well. The parties sometimes split up and go to two seperate state funerals to maximize the profitability of them. There are, at maximum, twelve members to the party. They never stay more than thirty minutes (I assume they realize that someone will do something to them the MOMENT they come out of the vans, and really, after that, they get their camera shots to cause the outrage for the next stop, and then they move on) to maximize their profits, because time is money, and really, they're not interested in the message, because they're just interested in the lawsuit.

See? They don't believe this stuff. If they did, they wouldn't have come to Coretta Scott King's funeral. Because in their doctrine, they don't believe that G-d hates black people who tried to promote Christianity. So why were they there? They were there to make a buck when someone slipped up. They were there to petition the police department for a right to protest, and if they didn't get it, take them to court over it.

Basically, Phelps is playing the Ken Lay, Karl Rove, "Smartest Man in the Room" game where he is willing to do anything (if it be lying or stealing, or telling you God hates you) to make himself rich and powerful. This is his scheme, and admittedly, it's clever, but just downright evil to promote so much hatred in the world.

Tell all your friends about this. This man is a con artist, and he's not a man of religion whatsoever.

After all, he makes everyone around him a lawyer. That should tell you right now he is not anything.

---

Should these ideas be incorporated into the article? -- Darkdan 20:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a good point, the only thing consistent about the guy is his unscrupulous pursuit of money through litigation, it's interesting that no one can find his bank account or determine his net value. - Ashhorn 19 april 2006

I've created a separate section about the Patriot Guard Riders (in part because I wanted something not deeply depressing to appear in the article's table of contents!).

Unfortunately, neither Google nor cnn.com's search function could find a citation for this paragraph:

When mourners at the targeted funerals were asked if they minded the roaring of the motorcylces, they responded no, as they, "preferred the loud roar of the patriotic machine than the bigoted cries of idiots." As stated in an interview with CNN.

I've therefore removed it. If anyone can find a citation, please edit the article accordingly — it's a great line.

I've also moved the Table of Contents of this page, and made the headers number properly.

(Later) Thanks to User:BabuBhatt for improving my edit. And this time, I'll sign my comment: Chris Chittleborough 08:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I wish to challenge this article based on bias. You are way to nice to this asshole! Expose his idiocy!

Please sign your contributions to talk pages by adding -~~~~ at the end.

Fortunately and unfortunately, the style we've all agreed to adopt here prevents us from being, well, mean to Phelps. - Seth Mahoney 04:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry but his way of going about and proclaiming america a doomed nation is just not christian at all. He may be an agent of the devil instead and probably is gay but wont admit it. When he goes and says that the people who died on 9/11 deserved to die then he has crossed into an area he will REGRET he ever crossed into. If he were drowning in an ocean and i was the only one who could save him i would let him die simply because he isnt worth the time or effort to save. And his followers as well. Burn in hell Phelps!!!!!!!!!!!

Please sign your contributions to talk pages by adding -~~~~ at the end.

Yeah, I agree. - Seth Mahoney 04:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Fred Phelps calling himself a Christian is as much a load of b.s. as Al Queda calling themselves Muslims. AuthorNeubius 06:00, 4 May 2006

Those are highly POV statements. In my view, Phelps is a consistent Christian and Al Qaeda is composed of consistent Muslims. LaszloWalrus 10:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Fred Phelps is a hero.

What in blazes do you mean by? Seven-point-Mystic 02:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Claiming Phelps is not Christian is committing the No True Scotsman fallacy. Most of his practices and beliefs, hateful as they are, are condoned and in some cases encouraged by the Christian Bible. Also, it does not sound very Christian of you to denounce him like that. Is it not a common Christian practice to forgive sinners? -- 68.68.92.168 21:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You may disagree with Mr Phelps, but there is no doubt that he is a very highly intelligent man.

Actually, the Christian Bible says "Love your neighbor as yourself". Yes, the Bible does condemn gay sex, but says nothing about hating gay people or soldiers. 65.68.145.113 14:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

He's a christian as much as al-qaeda members are muslims both are fundamentalists. Secondly, shut up about "probably is gay" using it as an insult. You can't admit that he's a christian and straight so you say he's an agent of the devil and gay. Get a grip, you are just as hateful as Fred Phelps and it shows in your comments. (Anonymous User) 12 June 2006

Phelps outdoubtable believes in God and the resurrection of Christ - IMO this makes him a Christian. Dmn € Դմն 23:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

If Phelps were indeed a Christian he wouldn't use "fag" and G*d in the same sentence (almost amounts to taking the Christian God's name in vain), nor would he hate, nor would he preach intolerance like he does. Yes, the Bible condemn's homosexuality, but since when do Christians follow the remedy for sin as described in the Old Testament? According to the New Testament, that covenant became obsolete when Jesus died on the Cross. But I don't think these discussions are appropriate for a Wikipedia talk page. Эйрон Кинни ( t) 11:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Mere belief is insufficient. (Even the demons believe... and shudder! -James 2:19) Obedience is also required. We cannot know what Phelps actually believes, but we can see that he does not obey. His behavior is overwhelmingly inconsistent with the teachings of scripture and the fruits of the Spirit. We are taught in scripture to judge a man as you would judge a tree: by its fruits. Phelps' fruits are grotesque. NCdave 18:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

pretty sad that this american's article is "one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community" and this one isn't Bigkev 06:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

True, though nothing brings in the editors in droves quite like a controversial topic or person. DavidGC 03:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

George Washington isn't curently doing stunts seeking the lime light. More people are finding the Fred Phelps article to be incomplete then the George Washington article. If you personally are more interested in George Washington then we all know what to do :) I'm more interested in readin about Fred Phelps, I've read plenty about George. Mathiastck 19:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Although I am the person who wrote the majority of this article, and I originally claimed that Charles Hockenbarger, et. al., were actual members of Identity, the source from which I culled this has come into question in regards to its credibility. Therefore, I am adding the qualifier "allegedly" until this can be cleared up. 70.241.29.250 06:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The link to the full text of the book Addicted to Hate is against the policy of Wikipedia. According to the policy of Wikipedia regarding copyrights we are not to include links to material that violate the owners copyright. (Under "Linking to copyrighted works it says, "Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. ") Just because a book (or movie, or audio recording, or anything other work) is entered into evidence in a trial, does not mean that the work can be freely stolen and distributed at whim. Copyrighted works do not go into the public domain when they are entered as evidence in court trials. I am removing Addicted to Hate as an external link for this reason. Vivaldi ( talk) 04:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Addicted to Hate is a self-published book that was written by Jon Bell. The work is owned by the Topeka Capital-Journal, but it was never published by anyone other than Jon Bell and some personal website that has inappropriately and probably illegally stolen the text and reprinted it in full. Jon Bell was an employee of TCJ when he was investigating Phelps, and therefore TCJ is the rightful owner of the work that was a derivative of the research that he was being paid to do when he was an employee of TCJ. TCJ sued Bell and won their case preventing Bell from ever publishing his book. (It is not clear that his book would have ever been published by anyone other than Jon Bell or some vanity publisher in any case.) Vivaldi ( talk) 04:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

As a self-published book, Addicted to Hate does not meet the requirements of the policy at Verifiability or the guidelines outlined at Reliable Sources. Addicted to Hate should not be used as a source for an encyclopedia article, nor is it allowed to be used in on Wikipedia as a source for an article. Vivaldi ( talk) 04:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No one owns the copyright because it was cleverly attached to a court document, making it public domain. That was, of course, the intent in attaching it to that court file: To ensure that it became public domain. Mistergrind 05:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You do not understand the meaning of copyright or what constitues making something "in the public domain". Just because an item (book, movie, or whatever else) is submitted to a court does not mean that it becomes "in the public domain". Also, there is no way to verify that this document was even the same document that was submitted to the court. Vivaldi ( talk) 17:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Your confusing different levels of government, and the issue of who does the work. Works of the U.S. federal government are PD. Works of the state and local governments, usually are not. Even if the court (a county court in this case) made this document, it wouldn't be PD. Even the text of judicial decisions is not necessary in the public domain, even when made public. Of course in this case, the court didn't make it, meaning that its almost certainly not PD. You also confuse making something available to the public (e.g. "public record") with "public domain". Many things are made public, without being in the public domain (for example, most of the billions of web pages in the world). A copyright holder can only loose their copyright if they explicitly release it. IANAL, but one handy rule-of-thumb I use, is if a web site warns you the legal status is "murky" and suggests you consider an "offshore" host to store the file, be cautious. Now you *might* have a case for using this link, if and only if, you argue Jon Michael Bell is the lawful copyright holder, who therefore has the right to release the material (in such a case, it still wouldn't be PD, but it would be legal usage, and therefore, ok to link to). But so far, I haven't heard you say that. Also, the current wording "the text entered into public domain" is a literal falsehood, which aught to be removed regardless of whether the link is preserved. -- Rob 22:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I de-linked it. However, I left the reference in place, as there's no legal problem with an unlinked-reference. Also, its easy enough to find, even without a direct link, and is as useful as countless references that don't have links (e.g. paper sources). I won't delve into the issue of reliability of sources. Also I removed the absurd falsehood, which suggested the material was legally released into the public domain. That exposes its readers (if they beleive it) to legal problems, and is highly irresponsible. By that absurd logic, anybody filing a lawsuit over coyright infringement, who submits their work into the court record (which occurs in *all* such suits) would be releasing the material to the public domain. Please, lets not advise people on how to break the law. -- Rob 14:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the absurd falsehood from the article asserting that documents submitted in court trials become public domain. I couldn't believe that assertion was allowed to remain in the article for more than one minute. Vivaldi ( talk) 01:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Any document entered into evidence in a trial becomes part of the public record, and is accessible through court records to anyone as such. It is part of the public record it can be cited, just not published. Needless to say, citing a document here is not the same as publishing. FeloniousMonk 02:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Vivaldi, was talking about the specific issue of the false legal advise I removed (which you added) claiming the material is public domain. I also had to remove the multiple mentions of "public domain" in individual cites. What you're now talking about, "public record", is distinct from " public domain". On that issue, note, that the site hosting ATH actually states "the trial records were sealed by the Clerk of the Court.". The site also suggests anyone hosting the info consider going "offshore" (things legally accessible to the public, don't need to go offshore). Many court submissions are not accessible to the public. But, you are quite right, that we're free to cite the document (not link, but cite). Anyhow, I suggest, leaving the issue of what sources to keep, and instead focus on fixing the article, so that all the footnotes actually match the text they accompany. Currently, they are out of sync, and there could still be more libel that needs removing. -- Rob 17:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

While I despise Fred Phelps as person and I despise the sick and demented actions of his followers (who I have seen in action NUMEROUS times) -- we should not violate the policies or guidelines of Wikipedia in order to present criticism of him.

Since Fred Phelps is a living person, and Wikipedia has special guidelines for treating subjects that are living, I will be removing any claims that are sourced only to Addicted to Hate. The guidelines at WP:BLP suggest that editors have a duty to remove any material that is not sourced or poorly sourced -- immediately! -- and without regard to the policy of the 3 revert rule. Also WP:BLP says, "information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below). I intend to remove any claims that are sourced to Addicted to Hate. Vivaldi ( talk) 04:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This article won Featured Article, with the sources to ATH. Who are you to decide that an article that was voted on by Wiki's users as FA needs to be pared down? All of the references from ATH were included when it won FA. You are confusing derogatory with unfactual; the truth does not always make people out to be nice, because not everyone is a nice person. Technically, saying that Joseph Stalin murdered his own people is derogatory; it is also true.

ATH is also not self published. Taschler, Fry, et. al. never published it; it is not a copyrighted work, and no one source can hold the claim to being the publisher. If you intend to go guerilla and start hacking this up, regardless of it being voted FA with the things you intend to remove, it will need to be protected. Mistergrind 05:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

MG writes:ATH is also not self published. Taschler, Fry, et. al. never published it; it is not a copyrighted work, and no one source can hold the claim to being the publisher. My response: The policy of Wikipedia requires that all claims made in the article must come from reliable PUBLISHED sources. So if the authors didn't publish the book, what reliable source PUBLISHED it? How can we verify the that the work published on the various web pages matches with the original work by the author? Your claim that "it is not a copyrighted work" is just plain wrong. Submitting a work to a court does not remove its copyright protection. Vivaldi ( talk) 07:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

ATH was never published by any reputable publisher. There were no fact-checkers, editors, or lawyers that give ATH any credibility or authority. Vivaldi ( talk) 17:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I believing it is also worth mentioning that, while you say that you're editing this because of the living person policy, at the same time you announce that you are going to violate another policy, simply because you want to. We're splitting hairs here a bit, aren't we? Mistergrind

No. I'm not going to violate any other policy. I am only repeating what it states at WP:BLP -- namely that claims about living people that are not sourced to reliable 3rd parties should be removed from the articles -- without regard to the 3RR rule. Vivaldi ( talk) 17:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Mistergrind is right, this article won Featured Article, with the sources to ATH. They are fine and should stay. Unilateral actions agains a former FA are not acceptable either. FeloniousMonk 05:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with FM and Mister. Notwithstanding that ATH is, I think, used in a fashion consistent with the proscriptions and prescriptions of WP:RS and WP:V, it should be said that the if derogatory, should not be used at all proviso refers generally, IMHO, to that information which is cited on a partisan website as fact, not that which is offered as critique (for example, WP:BLP would counsel that we oughtn't, absent other sourcing, to include a Daily Kos posting to the effect that George W. Bush does cocaine nightly but that, in a criticism section or passim, we might do well to include a DK posting to the effect that Many progressives belief that George W. Bush governs as if on cocaine [which, while perhaps overly vituperative, is nevertheless a citation to criticism rather than a citation to the truth of the matter underlying that criticism]). Finally, WP:BLP is, at least for the moment, not policy; it is only a guideline, one to the strict adherence of which we oughtn't to subjugate our compliance with other fundamental encyclopedic policies--we don't, though, need to reach that meta-analysis here. Joe 05:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

ATH has not been published by a reputable and reliable source. It was self-published and given to the courts in a trial in which the judge ruled that he could NOT publish the book. Vivaldi ( talk) 17:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I must also question exacly how NPOV ATH really is. Yes, he does come off extremely bad from reading it. But one of the core theses of the early portion of the book is, where did someone so nice go so mean? The parts about Fred's past, which are reflected in this article, portray him as well liked, talented, athletic, and helpful; it talks about his accomplishments in extracirricular activities in high school, his musical abilities, the relatively high opinion held of him by his classmates, and the high ambitions which people he knew him expected him to acheive (professional boxer, West Point Graduate). If ATH was to be a total hackjob (and it is certainly easy to understand how it comes off as one), all of that information could have been easily left out. Mistergrind 05:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not ATH is NPOV itself is only of minor importance. It is UNVERIFIABLE. ATH has only been "published" by the author of the book and that work has been copied on web pages by unknown 3rd parties. There is no way to verify the authenticity of the work. It is completely unverifiable and because of the Wikipedia policies at WP:V, it cannot be used as a source. Vivaldi ( talk) 17:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure it can. It can be read and the fact that it's the source of a lawsuit makes it sufficiently notable as well, making it worthy of mention in the article. FeloniousMonk 15:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

How can it be verified? How do we know if we have the author's actual words? Where has it been published? Is there an ISBN? And certainly mentioning that there was a lawsuit over the book is one thing -- that is verifiable from court records -- but the fact that the book was used in a lawsuit doesn't justify its basis for being used as a reputable source of information about Fred Phelps. Nobody ever made a determination that the book was worthy of being published. In fact, the author of the book lost his bid to publish the work because he was unethical and stole research that did not belong to him. Vivaldi ( talk) 00:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's very helpful to have a "see also" section consisting solely of links to psychiatric disorders. These should probably be placed in a context relevant to Mr. Phelps. --20:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a "citation needed" mark to the quote about Mr. Peanut. While hilarious, it would benefit the article to have a source for that quote. Chris Berry 21:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Does Phelps actually have Alzheimer's?

--

God, I hope so. He sure deserves it. I'm counting down the days until this disgusting thing is dead -- Tyron1 20:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This section has been blanked per WP:LIVING. To see the original version, click here. -- Rob 01:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

After removing the bogus item in the "Criminal record" section, I note the remaining ones are poorly sourced. We have nndb, which is a) not adequate for very serious matters and b) says that charges may be listed, even if no conviction exists. The SPLC is a good organization, but probably isn't neutral. Finally, we have a paper source, which somebody will a) need to vouch for here, b) provide page numbers. My suspiscion is that the remining criminal items, all have some basis in truth, but we may not be making a clear distinction of criminal vs. non-criminal, and charged vs. convicted in some of the items. I have trouble understanding how such an awfully sourced article became featured. Given this articles record of including blatent libel for several weeks, without notice, I'm hoping we can start doing a better job now. -- Rob 16:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The article became featured because all-in-all it appears to be a long, well-written (prose-wise), and thorough examination of Fred Phelps. And I can imagine the most of the stuff written in the article about Phelps is in fact true. I've seen the disgusting actions of his followers in action in person on the streets of Topeka, Kansas City, and elsewhere on numerous occasions. However, we must remember that this is biography of a living person and we must as editors of an encyclopeia make sure we are following the guidelines set out there and especially we should make sure that we are following the policy of verifiability, which means that we need reliable and reputable sources of information that have been PUBLISHED (and not just self-published on web pages). Vivaldi ( talk) 01:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed all but two now. The SPLC, so far, seems to be the only reliable source which explicitly states he has any criminal conviction. NNDB is dubious, but I left one, based on it, for now. I think there's been some confusion between criminal vs. non-criminal, and convicted vs. charged. There's a third source, a paper book, which isn't available to me (not in the local library). Normally a paper book is ok, but given the track record for the article, I think it isn't, unless somebody wants to vouch for it, and explicitly cite what page makes what claim. -- Rob 18:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

My edit summary got cut off because i hit return instead of shift, but what I was saying about removal of the Euro conversion was that we don't include translations into different currencies unless it's relevant to the article or a case of a significant difference - or, in many cases, they include USD conversions because it's an international measure. That's what I meant about the pounds sterling not being included. Jibbajabba 06:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

- - I beleive this article should be changed, and shrunk substantially. Addicted To Hate (ATH) is clearly noteworthy, and valid to mention, but it's relied on way to much. Just look at the References section. To many things rest solely on such claims. Reliance on ATH risks a situation of defamation (in case claims are untrue). If most of the ATH content was removed the article wouldn't be "pro Phelps", since virtually all reliable sources are (properly) very negative towards the man (who actually seeks bad press). There are countless indisputeable negative notable things about Phelps (mainly in his later life), it's therefore wrong that this article focuses on less verifiable non-notable things (mainly in his early personal life). Also, I feel a shorter article, will be more easily maintainable, which can avoid repition of past known libel that sat in this article for a signficant period of time. If people wish to keep the article at this long length, then I'll respect that *if* you're prepared to carefully review the accuracy of the article, ensuring all facts are actually supported by the cites. Currently, its fairly obvious, that not only are many cites unreliable, but they're out-of-sync with the text. Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting the article be "nicer" to Phelps, but we just stick to the easily verifiable facts. -- Rob 03:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC) - - --I'd dispute that Phelps' earlier life is somehow less important than his later life. He gained national notoriety in the 90s, true, but trimming down events involving him and the church from before would be to trivialize how they led to his nation "love crusade(s)" and also the things he did that were notable in Topeka and Kansas before he gained steam nationally. The article is definitely long, but I don't see how it could be significantly shrunken without hindering it (though maybe some of the sections near the bottom could be moved to the WBC article--such as the people targeted by the Church). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.37.117.193 ( talk • contribs) .

The footnote, Fred Phelps#_ref-addict3_7, points to the article http://cjonline.com/indepth/phelps/stories/080394_phelps01.shtml , however this article doesn't talk at all about the sentence for which the footnote applies, "When one of the missionaries choked during a question and answer session, Phelps responded by attacking the questioner, sparking a near riot." I looked back in the history and this sentence should be associated with this source http://blank.org/addict/chapter3.html instead. I'm hoping that I'm misunderstanding but I don't really have a way to search through the revisions to see when this footnote changed and why. Can someone confirm this and fix it. Are other footnotes that point to http://cjonline.com/indepth/phelps/stories/080394_phelps01.shtml bogus as well? -- User:Gene Wood 21:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I made a fix for this, as "addict3" obviously referred to Chapter 3 of Addicted To Hate. Looking in history, it seems one url was mysteriously copied over another. The problem was not visible for a long time, because incorrect note numbering allowed a visual association between the note and the chapter, that didn't match the actual association. The error became visible after the conversion to the "<references><ref>" system. When the old system of footnote numbering was used, it was much harder to keep things in "sync", and I suspect other errors probably slipped in. -- Rob 13:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this bastard's, ah, excuse me, this man's page a little biased-sounding to anyone else? I can't put my finger on it. -- User:LetheSoda 22:46, 2 July 2006

---I think it's about as objective as it can get.

Apparently this article was moved recently from Fred Phelps to Senior Fred Waldron Phelps. The current title makes no sense since the article states that the subject's full name is Fred Waldron Phelps, Sr. Designations like "Sr.", "Jr." or "III" do not precede a person's name in any American usage I have ever heard. We have a guideline about this, and the subject is commonly known as Fred Phelps in any event. -- Metropolitan90 14:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: I have already moved it back to Fred Phelps in case anyone was wondering. [3] -- Metropolitan90 15:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The category of former drug users was added several days ago, and today it was removed. I was wondering why this took place. The article clearly states Phelps is a former drug user, so unless the article is incorrect, I see no reason why this category should be removed. It seems to me that if you are going to remove the category, you need to remove the references to former drug use. I'm not going to revert it (yet), because the editor deserves a chance to explain, and perhaps this was already discussed and I missed the dialogue. As I know that tone is lost on the printed word, let me state I'm not complaining, accusing, or being confrontational (I have to add the disclaimer with this page, since it is so very controversial), but honestly would like to know what rationale was involved. Perhaps the suggestion is he may still be a drug user and that information is unknown? Let me know!  :) Cheers! -- Chuchunezumi 03:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Gee, don't I feel stupid? It was late and I should have looked harder for the correction explanation. Sorry! -- Chuchunezumi 18:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)