The legal actions taken by the Swedish royal family is according to the article in SvD not for his comments about Sweden in general, but for his comments about the royal family per se, and then especially his comments about princess Madeleine claiming she being indecent.

• Out of curiosity - does anyone know what these creatures (I won't have them in the same category as us humans) at WBC make of the United Nations? I can imagine they'll hate it, as they seem to hate everything in the universe, but it would be interesting to know...

Hatred of Islam and muslims, however despicable, is not racism, and neither is hatred of Catholics or Catholicism. In general the racism section is pretty weak. There is plenty bad to be said about Phelps without bringing the allegation that he uses the word "nigger." --mikedelsol

No, this church does NOT follow in the tradition of Calvinism. God does not hate any person, nor are we instructed to hate. The Heidelberg Catechism, written c. 1563, expounds on the 5th commandment (Thou shalt not kill) in Q&A104, 105, 106: The command teaches us to "not to belittle, insult, hate, or kill my neighbor--not by my thoughts, my words, my look, or gesture and certainly not by actual deeds..." The command against murder "teaches us that God hates the root of murder: envy, hatred, anger, vindictiveness. In God's sight all such are hidden murder." Furthermore, the command teaches that "God wants us to love our neighbors as ourselves..." As to Phelps himself, John Calvin wrote that "if pastors turn away from the word (of God) to their dreams and to the inventions of their own minds, already they are no longer to be received as pastors, but being seen to be rather pernicious wolves, they are to be chased away" (Calvin, Instruction in Faith, 1537). (RL, ordained minister of the word, Minnesota)

Is it just me or does Godhatesfags.com and God Hates America so extreme in their gay bashing that it becomes a parody? A parody of the religious right being against homosexuality. It sure seems like that to me. --Arm

Agreed. I am a conservative Christian and I am apalled by the hateful rhetoric Phelps spews. Please see the "Criticism" section I added on this talk page User:Ted-m

Nice work. Much better. I removed the NPOV tag.--Cberlet 02:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article could be accused of not quite attaining NPOV, but it is clear that the writers have made an attempt to see this ridiculous crusade from both sides that is nothing short of heroic.

Patrick Beverley, 15 August 2005

Advertisement for a hate site. A wiki stub would have had information about this site. Wetman 22:53, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)~

Advertisement? I'm not advertising, I'm completely against what they're saying. I'm just putting it down in an article. PMC 02:13, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This needs to be able to be linked to from "god hates fags" and "God hates fags". I would do it, but I'm too stupid :( JackLynch 02:25, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'll get right on it. (And you're not stupid...you're just inexperienced. Check out the help file when you don't know what to do :) PMC 02:31, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

NPOV? We state that the church believes God hates gay people, then refer to "their [i.e. the church's] hatred." To be pedantic, it's God that supposedly hates them, not the congregation, and to insinuate otherwise (though undoubtedly the vast majority of the churchgoers do hate gay folks) smacks of bias. I mean, it's not "wehatefags.com". leigh

Thanks for responding to my suggestion, but I'm not sure that I'd go so far as to say: "Members of the church point out that it is God who hates fags, and not them. They claim to love homosexuals, and claim to believe that letting homosexuals know that God wants them to change is an act of love." After looking at the site some more, it's pretty clear that the church doesn't claim to love homosexuals at all, but I still think the original wording was... sketchy. What do you think of it now? leigh 06:12, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry, wasn't fully awake before. Anyway, I got that from various news interviews I've seen. They *claim* that. I don't believe it for a minute. moink 07:05, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Jerry Falwell says Phelps is a first class nut? First thing that popped into my head when I seen that was "takes one to know one."
JesseG 20:52, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I remember an appearance by a woman and her children on the Howard Stern show... they were members of the Westboro Church, and in the few minutes I watched one thing that the woman said struck me as an interesting point: "I don't hate fags, God hates fags," or something to that effect. And yes, Fred Phelps mentioned this subject in an April 2003 interview with BlackTable.com: (Here's the URL:[1] - JesseW 08:56, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC))

... I'm the only one who loves these beasts. I'm the only one that loves them. It plainly says in Leviticus: 19 that "if you love these Sodomites, you've got to warn them that they're going to hell or if you don't you hate your brother and your heart... we call them [the church's picketing campaigns] Love Crusades. Look, these kissy-pooh people -- what I tell 'em [homosexuals] is that I don't think you can repent and that you're already in Hell now, roasting, walking sulpher streets, but if you have any hope at all it'll be behind what I'm telling you and not these kissy-pooh preachers that have turned this country into a nation of moral diabetics. Their churches are candy stores and they not only cannot cure you, but they'll also make your diabetes worse. You need to be told that you're headed straight for hell and you can't do one thing about it. Have a nice day! khan 22:47 July 4 2004 (EST)

Really? Does Fred own a Bible in which the word "Sodomites" appears in Leviticus 19? He should return it and get his money back. - Outerlimits 02:59, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's great. He got the chapter wrong. Here's a URL to Leviticus 19, and it says nothing about homosexuality. Leviticus 20 does include the famous "if a man lies with a man as with a woman, they both shall be put to death" line, and 19 does include "Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him", which is sort of like his reference to neighbors, but the fact is, he got the Bible reference wrong. And they call themselves Christians. JesseW 08:56, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wonder if Phelps ever heard of this verse before,

"Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.

Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove that splinter from your eye,' while the wooden beam is in your eye? You hypocrite,remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye." (Matthew 7:1-5)

Or the similiar one found in Luke 6? I wonder what his interpertation of this verse is, that is if he bothers acknowledging that it exists?

JesseG 04:58, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

I started some sections to give the article more structure, and made other indicated changes. -Willmcw 08:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This doesn't need to be disambiguated, I think. The only other use of Westboro Baptist Church appears to be one in Ottawa which is now known by a different name -- this is a nice natural disambiguator, and could be taken care of with a disambig block. Tuf-Kat 05:30, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

A friend gave me this. Copy and paste this link in to your webbrowser otherwise it won't work http://data.4channel.org/p/src/1104484357896.gif I don't know of its validity. If somebody want to add this to the article, go ahead. If you can't download the image: It's basically a flier by the church that praises the presumed 2000 deaths of Swedes in the recent asian tsunami. As a Swedish citizen I find it highly offensive that goes beyond words, so it would be impossible for me to write an unbiased addition to the article regarding this. Thanks, Mastgrr 11:29, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I added a bit to it and think more criticism from both religious and secular public figures should continue to be added.

If parodies are encyclopedic and appropriate for an article, should this one include the Landover Baptist satirical web site. --WCFrancis 19:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Landover Baptist is a parody of more mainstream fundamentalist churches. WBC might actually make a good parody of Landover. Guanaco 23:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Er...so are they "Baptists"? The Calvinism tie-in doesn't sound right. I'm just wondering if we should clarify what formal relations this church may or may not have to any other religious groups; (ie: do these people have their own unique religion, or are they considered a radical offshoot of something else?) func(talk) 20:53, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be explored more carefully. I do think they have adapted a doctrinaire version of Calvinisim, but it is unclear in the current text how that works. As for Christian Identity, someone needs to show Phelps has preasched or written that his flock is descended from one of the lost tribes of Israel and thus are the real "Jews" to actually be called Identity. I't not good enough to say some members used to be Identity, or that since both Identity and Phelps are hate groups, they are the same thing. Too weak. --Cberlet 14:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"They adhere largely to the principles of Christian Identity, to which several congregants also belong." SOurce this or it stays out. It is a very serious charge. See the paragraph above. There must be some documentation of the claim to be the "real" Jews of the covenant through ancestry. That's what Christian Identity is all about. See Christian Identity and British Israelism.--Cberlet 21:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Christian Identity charges are covered in the book on Phelps, "Addicted to Hate." Tolerance.org also lists Westboro as a Christian Identity church.70.243.43.69 06:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am a critic of Phelps, and he may well promote Christian Identity, but it needs to be cited to some proof that they promote the central tenet of Identity, which is that White Christians are descended from one of the lost tribes of Israel and thus are the real "Jews." Watchdog groups can make claims that turn out to be slightly off target. And I work at one, so I am just being cautious here. --Cberlet 14:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just checked Tolerance.org (SPLC) and they do not list Phelps' church in their list of Christian Identity groups.--Cberlet 14:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Guilt by association is not up to Wiki standards. Please talk before simply re-inserting a claim that is not backed by the SPLC page previously cited.--Cberlet 16:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have studied Westboro; researched them, read up on them. I have even met a few of them. The nature of the group is thus: What Fred Phelps says, they all say; what Fred Phelps believe, they all believe. If Fred Phelps says that blacks are animals and that Westboro-ites are the chosen people rather than Jews, they ALL believe that blacks are animals and that Westboro-ites are the chosen people rather than Jews.70.243.43.69 16:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have also studied Westboro and have written extensively about Christian Identity. There is a reason that the SPLC does not come out and list the church as Christian Identity, and that is because the evidence is one tiny step behind that line. I suspect what you say may well be true, but it is wrong to state it outright. I have tried to write a sentence that is as strong as I think the evidence allows. --Cberlet 17:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry. I admit my mistake; Tolerance.org lists it as a hate group; the link I clicked from another page said that I was being re-directed to Tolerance's listing of Christian Identity groups. Upon second inspection, the link only leads to generic hate groups, not just CI.

Not to worry. What we ended up with was a strong sentence about Identity up at the top of the article, and in a wording that can be documented. So it was a good outcome. And I suspect at some point it may become clear that what we both suspect anout Phelps is true. --Cberlet 03:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:83.216.148.11 is adding a large list of Current Members of the Westboro Baptist Church. Is there really any need for such an extense list? Would you please explain why? At least, certainly there is no need for all those duplicated and red links.--Nabla 2005-06-30 17:12:47 (UTC)

Cause the various members of the church tend to crop up in media reports on their activities all the time, and it would be nice to know about their relationships within the group. It also goes to show that all members can basically be traced back to three roots - Phelps, Hockenbarger and Stutzman. I spent a good amount of time researching this, and you're welcome to "clean it up" yourself - always easier to criticize than to do the actual work, isn't it? If you want to remove it altogether - ok, see if I care. 83.216.148.11 30 June 2005 17:18 (UTC)

In fact, why don't I save you the effort, I'll delete the list of members of the congregation. Thank you for the sterling service you've done to wikipedia, Nabla. 83.216.148.11 30 June 2005 17:32 (UTC)

If I wanted it deleted I would have done so. I simply suggested that you provided an explanation on why it is important and gave it a better formatting, mostly leaving red links only on those who merit its own article. I don't know anything about this subject so you would choose much better than I.

I'll use the explanation you gave here on the top of the list. And I'll format the list and remove *every* red link. Please put them back on where you believe they are important enough to have their own article.--Nabla 2005-06-30 19:28:08 (UTC)

Done, please disambiguate, or remove, the SRS link.--Nabla 2005-06-30 20:02:37 (UTC)

I have added an NPOV tag to this article. There is scarcely a sympathetic viewpoint in the article, and many of the quotations are unsourced, with perhaps a barely implied reference to the congregation's website. Surely some group must have published something agreeing with Phelps's views. Moreover, much of the writing itself is not balanced. For example, it is hardly NPOV to introduce the Christian Identity movement with only the descriptors "anti-Semitic" and "racist" without first giving at least a phrase to describe what this movement is and does. NatusRoma 02:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate and specify:

• Arrests that occurred four years prior to the formation of the church are not germane to this article.
• Unqualified descriptions of church members' actions as "hypocrisy" is in no way neutral.
• This article describes the Christian Identity movement as something cohesive. While I am unfamiliar with the movement, the Wikipedia article describes it as quite disorganized in nature.
• This article is devoid of any outside views sympathetic to the church. Such views, as long as they are not extreme minority views, form the cornerstone of a neutral point of view.
• Perhaps most importantly for such a controversial subject, large parts of the article are unsourced. Consider:

• This article contains 10 sections with level 2 headings, seven of which contain no level 3 subsections, and three of which contain a total of 19 level 3 subsections.
• Of the seven, two are concerned with references. Of the other five, three are entirely unsourced, including "The Compound", "Responses", and "Criticism".

Of the 19 level 3 headings, 10 are entirely unsourced, including "Theology", "Doomsday Vision", "Criminal Record", "Violence Against Westboro", "September 11 and the Shuttle Columbia", "London Terrorist Attacks", "Child Molestation Stance", "Anti-Asian racism", "Anti-Catholicism", and "Anti-Obesity Stance".

These sections state that church members have been convicted of crimes, and include statements that could be construed as libel or slander against their targets. I won't even mention the numerous objectionable deeds that Phelps and other church members have committed. Simply put, this material is unbelievable. In order to show people the true horror of Phelps's views, those views must be accurately described and clearly sourced. Anything less will simply aid Phelps's cause. NatusRoma 06:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly everything you say is "unsourced" can be found, as the article states, in the book "Addicted to Hate" (Criminal Record) or on Westboro's own homepage ("Theology", "Doomsday Vision," "Violence against Westboro, September 11 and the Shuttle Columbia," "London Terrorist Attacks," "Child Molestation Stance," "Anti-Asian racism," "Anti-Catholocism," "Anti-Obesity Stance"). Instead of saying these things aren't "Neutral" and labelling the article as being biased, why not take the time to make corrections?

Thank you for including those links. I admit that I have been quite reluctant to delve at all deeply into Phelps's website. I think that we have already made this article more NPOV. However, this article still includes no outside opinions sympathetic to Phelps and the WBC. Surely there must be some credible supporter out there. As vehemently as we disagree with Phelps's views, intellectual honesty demands that we acknowledge that there are those who agree with them. For more on why this is important, please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, especially the sections entitled "Fairness and sympathetic tone" and "Morally offensive views".

Please do not consider my criticisms of this article a personal criticism of you. I have raised these questions because I honestly want this to become a better article. We can work together to make it so. NatusRoma 05:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is not the factual content, which is very accurate, but the tone of the article and the frequent POV wording. Actually, very few people--even in the Christian Right--agree with Phelps. If we all take a paragraph and try to make the wording less judgemental, it will go a long way toward fixing the problem. --Cberlet 12:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please, no revert wars. Pick a paragraph and we can work on it together. One paragraph at a time. --Cberlet 12:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not let us confuse NPOV as being required to have sympathetic viewpoints inlcuded if none can be found. If we can great, realizing that alot of the material one might have to go through to find a "creditble" sympathetic voice even if it exists would require going through alot of potentially upsetting material. I do agree about your points about revising the tone of the way the facts to maintain neutrality. But let the facts speak for themselves. Graniterock 19:00, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

That's a much better way to put it. I agree. --Cberlet 21:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I went through and changed a few minor things. But over all it seems to me that the article is fairly neutral. I'll try to deal with the points in order:

• I think the "alleged cult" comment is ok. Westboro is listed as a cult in many directories on the internet.

• Many websites link phelps with Christian ID movement. But many more indicate it's the same type of ideology but phelps sepcifically is much more fundamentalist and focused on homosexual issues so is likely seperate. I revised the article to comment there were similarities between Chrsitian ID mov. but not direct connection.

• I removed the hypicrisy comment, but left in the facts about the incident. People will draw their own conclusions.

• The article at the end talks about a video that is sympathetic to phelps. I think that is enough. If you someone else can find something cool. But being devoid of more sympathetic comments I do not think makes this article non-neutral.

• there are lots of things not sourced, but alot is sourced. The unsourced things seem to be legit. I will add a link to the end of the article from Topeka newspaper which cites many of phelps legal issues. I don't have time to cite every single little thing, but I have no reason to disbelieve it. Perhaps over time we can work to find sources for everything. Just because something is not cited, doesn't mean it isn't neutral.

I think that deals with all of the concerns stated so far. Maybe over the next few months we can work on getting everything properly cited. While the article perhaps needs some more work, I think overall I think it meets the spirit of being neutral. Graniterock 00:41, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone have a problem with moving this article back to Westboro Baptist Church? If not, the redirect with that name must be speedily deleted first. Guanaco 01:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I vote Move --Orborde 05:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to believe these whackjobs haven't commented on the New Orleans disaster yet. Anyone know anything about that?--Deridolus 23:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check the front page of godhatesamerica, it beings "Thank God for Katrina [...] New Orleans, symbol of America, seen for what it is: a putrid, toxic, stinking cesspool of fag fecal matter." -jackd, 7 September 2005

The article here says WBC wrote a song titled "I Like to Watch," however I thought that that was a song by the Church of Euthanasia. Also, the description of the WBC song reminds me of the CoE's video (careful, it's not at all work-safe). I googled "I Like to Watch" Westboro, but all I got were Wikipedia clones. Xen0phile | (talk) 04:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It very well could be/could have been, but it was attributed to Phelps, and Phelps' quasi-sexual comments relating to the attacks certainly didn't help to dispel any rumors. I think at one point Phelps even commented that he enjoyed watching re-runs of the footage of the planes striking the towers, which is what the narrator of the song talks about; this probably only reinforced the idea that Phelps was responsible, and Phelps certainly didn't put forth any effort to dispel those rumors. I'll adjust the article accordingly.70.243.32.96 04:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think there needs to be a separate section describing the congregational polity of the Baptist Church. As far as I know, aren't most individual Baptist congregations supposed to be doctrinally independant? Somone reading this article who is not familiar with how Baptists organize might think that there is some Baptist pope somewhere that approves of Fred Phelps and Westboro, while in truth they may not really be affiliated with or accountable to any other Baptist individuals congregations. It might also be good to include a representative quote from other Baptists saying something to the effect of "Many/Most Baptists disagree with Fred Phelps and dissociate themselves from his message of hate" MPS 19:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Has WBC ever actually professed this "hierarchy of sin"? I can't find anything on a "hierarchy of sin" on Google relating to WBC or Phelps except on Wikipedia mirrors. Guanaco 21:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "hierarchy of sin" set forth by Westboro is as follows:

• Insulting or opposing Westboro Baptist Church or any of its members (which the group equates with blasphemy of the Holy Ghost, listed in the Bible as the sole unforgivable sin)
• Homosexuality
• All forms of sexual activity, other than that within the confines of marriage and only in the "traditional" missionary position (the group has, on at least one occasion, branded all non-missionary sex as "kinky")
• Abortion
• Adultery

They have never said that. It originates in the author's imagination. In fact, Phelps has said that the Bible is silent on what goes on sexual in a marriage and that the marriage bed is undefiled. I'd like to see something that says all non-missionary sex is kinky.

1) They say that mockery of WBC is equivalent with blasphemy of the Holy Ghost, the unforgivable sin. This tops Homosexuality, since they have "repentant fag" testimonies 2) Homosexuality, obviously 3) Look it up on WBC for yourself: "No kinky sex"

I will grant you, though, that the order of 3-5 could probably be shifted.

Can someone explain why the transcript is so fervently being deleted (and referred to as "broken?") It's the church's beliefs in the words of two of its members, which, aside from Phelps, this entry does not have. It's rare for anyone except Fred, Margie, or Shirley to speak in public about their attitudes. For two twenty-something girls (Libby, I believe, might be only 19) to speak out as such, especially as they did, and to voice the contradictory opinion that they want everyone to go to hell, and that they like the pain of others regardless of any holy obligation, deserves recognition.70.242.1.244 06:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The transcript is broken because it is poorly formatted and does not include the questions the girls were asked. Also, where did you find this transcript? We need a link or the name of some publication so we can verify it. Unverifiable content should be removed. Guanaco 07:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will post the link this time; as you shall see, it is not "broken" because they weren't asked any questions. They simply walked up to the interviewer and began spouting this stuff. The entirety of what they said is duplicated.

I don't believe the transcript should be included. 1) The transcript is poorly constructed, and what they are saying is hard to understand out of context. 2) No major ideas come across that haven't already been stated in the article. 3) The link to the video already exists, and the conversation with the girls is one of the most minor events of the video. I don't believe that the transcript adds anything to the article that is not already there in a more concise manner. Avengerx 00:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so! I think they have some things in common with the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, which is led by the British Commonwealth's fiercest Royalist, Ian Paisley of Ulster. What do you think? - (Aidan Work 06:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Cult (kult) n.- A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.

1). Westboro's doctrine is so far deviated from any accepted form of Christianity that it has been deemed radical, extremist, and often blasphemous by nearly every religious denomination in the country, including the Baptists to whom they loosely affiliate themselves

2). The majority of the members of Westboro live inside of a fenced compound with a communal backyard, as already addressed in the article, with their church being the furnished basement of their leader. Those who do not live within the compound live within the immediate vicinity, and though rumor does not substantiate inclusion, it has been talked about for a while now in Topeka that WBC is attempting to gain ownership of the land around the compound so as to expand itself.

3). Fred Phelps declares himself to be a direct prophet of God and the only man alive on Earth who is capable of bringing anyone salvation. He claims that following or not following him directly correlates to salvation or damnation, directly, and that anyone who slights him has automatically earned damnation. He exerts total and absolute control over the members of his group, with those who manage to break away either being "damned" by the group or, on at least one occasion, mysteriously ending up dead.

WBC is, quite literally, a textbook case of a cult.70.242.1.244 20:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Cult is a POV view, if you are not a member, you might say cult, but if you are a member, you would say organization. This is Wikipedia, we must maintain NPOV. «»Who?¿?^meta 18:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cult is not a POV view. Of course the members aren't going to term it a cult; does that mean that no recognized cult can be called so because the members believe that it is not? What about Jim Jones, was he not a cult leader? The Westboro Baptist Church fits the dictionary definition of a cult to the 't'. I vote for the proper terminology on the page.Avengerx 19:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Given the negative connotations of the word cult, I can understand the need to be careful of what is called a cult and what is not. However, just because a word has negative connotations does not automatically make it a word that can not be used to describe things. If a cult is characterized by extreamist views, by an authoritarian leader with people living in unconvential manner, then yes, by the standards of society from which Westboro opperates, it is clearly a cult (not sure what other standard we would use). Thus I agree with Avengerx, cult is the terminology we should be using. Granite T. Rock 01:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WBC certainly meets our definition of cult: a cult is a cohesive group of people (often a relatively small and new religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream.

WBC has 150 members and is relatively new. Their religious beliefs are far outside the mainstream, and most people are strongly offended by WBC's picketing practices. How could this group not be a cult? Guanaco 03:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The word "cult" is obviously POV. There are many definitions of "cult". Wikipedia has no definition for "cult", although we have an article about the topic we are not a dictionary. For this reason I have removed it yet again. Rhobite 00:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rhobite, the word is an English word with obvious meaning and according to ANY dictionary you read, WBC falls under the category of a cult. There is a majority of people within the discussion who have agreed that cult is not POV. If you do not like the definition of the word, I suggest you appeal to the makers of dictionary to alter the meaning. I am going to revert, and we can discuss the a possible change here. Avengerx 00:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary definitions are irrelevant to this discussion. Dictionaries give broad definitions, they are not prescriptive language guides. Dictionaries are useless in most debates and arguments. The question we should be asking is whether there are negative connotations to the word "cult". The answer is yes. Therefore we must attribute any statements accusing them of being a cult. We cannot state it as a fact due to the NPOV policy. Truth is not an exception to the NPOV policy. Rhobite 01:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you at war with the dictionary establishment? Regardless, the negative connotations that follow the word 'cult' are natural. There are obvious negative connotations with words like 'facist' or 'dictator', but we still must use them when they apply. While the members of Westboro Baptist Church may not feel that they are a cult, but 99% of the English speaking world does. If we took into account the feelings of every person and group covered in Wikipedia, we would have Charles Manson and Jim Jones protesting their status as cult leaders. Catch my drift? Avengerx 01:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm just tired of people who think that dictionaries provide "true definitions" of anything. All terms with negative or positive connotations should be used extremely cautiously in Wikipedia. Since the word "cult" is negative and poorly defined, we need to be very careful about using it. As I said dictionaries provide broad, unusable definitions. Anti-cult groups typically have checklists, none of which are authoritative or widely accepted definitions. Also this has nothing to do with hurting WBC's feelings, it is simply a requirement of the NPOV policy that we use neutral language. Rhobite 03:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're still avoiding my line of reasoning based upon the fact that if WBC isn't a cult, what is? Your logic is that we shouldn't refer to them as a cult because it has a negative connotation. The actions of the WBC are all worthy of a negative connotation by society. Under your line of reasoning, the People's Temple shouldn't be called a cult because that would involve a value judgement. Nothing can be described completely without bias or opinion; especially when it comes to sensitive topics such as religion. However, if an overarching percentage of society believes that something is deserving of a negative connotation, it is indeed academically appropriate to note that in an encyclopedia entry. WBC is a cult by dictionary definition, and by common concensus. Your logic is obviously flawed as per my People's Temple example. What say you now? Avengerx 04:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is also flawed logic to say that since we call People's Temple a cult, we should apply the label indiscriminately based on a dictionary definition. Let's stay on the topic of this article. I do not think there is a consensus to call WBC a cult, either on this site or in the media (media coverage of WBC usually refrains from using the term). I also think the language in the People's Temple article should be modified to say that the group was universally recognized as a cult, rather than stating that they were a cult as a fact. Rhobite 15:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"It is a sin not to rejoice when other people are victims of tragedy, violence, or suffering. WBC has repeatedly prayed for sin, evil, murder, violence, death, disease, natural disasters, war, terrorism, and total destruction for every individual not in their church. In addition, they hope and pray that everybody - save themselves - will burn in hell for all eternity."

Is that the ACTUAL quote copied from the site? They REALLY said that?

The content at http://www.godhatesfags.com/featured/20050831_thank-god-for-katrina.html is very similar to that. Guanaco 00:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guanaco,there are some areas where I don't agree with the WBC on.However, I do agree with their advocacy of giving homosexuals the death penalty,as it says in the Book of Leviticus,'Man shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind,for that is an abomination.Whoever does so shall be put to death'.The Book of Romans also restates this message,but worded differently. - (Aidan Work 01:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I don't know how this directly relates to the Katrina page or to the quote, but I do have one question: have you had any shellfish lately? Guanaco 02:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]