Talk:Fred Phelps/Archive1

Minor Issue

One minor issue in the beliefs' section. This section implies they believe that God will harden the hearts of all reprobates to their warnings. Might be worth pointing out that according to their ideology it is possible that at least SOME people will be moved by their teaching (those who are god's elect, and this was his method of reaching them) so they can claim there protests are also being done "out of love" as a means to save those theoretical people. I suppose, according to their view, the documentarian who joined the cult would be such a person.

I really like the look of that godhatesfag site! --Stevo 19:08, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

Hideous, isn't it? --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 19:28, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

It mentions anal sex, but doesn't really seem to be condemning it. --Stevo 05:58, 18 June 2007 (CDT)

Phelps doesn't think much of Canada either, and has been known to fly our flag upside-down, a sign of extreme disrespect. --Kels 20:08, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

Sweden too, apparently. --ויִכִּ נתֶּרֶפּרֶתֵּר ^{שְׁלֹום!}

I'd like to see him do that to Switzerland! --Kels 07:12, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

He also flies the American flag upside down, as a "distress call." (Which is the only legitimate reason to fly the flag upside down, according to the flag code.) Of course, his distress is the overwhelming "gayness" of the country. Researcher 22:25, 14 November 2007 (EST)

oh, come one, who hates canada, eh? Except for that psychopath. Now, I need to go to the store for more maple syrup but I can't seem to find my polar bear harness. It should be somewhere in this igloo... Cowapalooza (talk) 05:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Conservative?

Just wondering, due to an edit naming him as such. I may have jumped the gun in reverting :S and I'm no lefty-righty expert. Norseman^Wassail! 10:17, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

He's definetly a conservative despite his branding of being liberal on Conservapedia. Conservatives are a strange breed, they make up a definition of liberal and then call someone who is the exact opposite of that description one --Uncle J 23:22, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Well, his opinions are so twisted that he really doesn't fall well anywhere, although hyperconservative would be, perhaps, the closest. --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 23:53, 14 November 2007 (EST)

On some matters, he is (or at least was, once) somewhat liberal. His early work against segregation is a good example of that. However, his monomania is such that you can't really call him conservative or liberal, because he only cares about the one issue. He doesn't give a fig about taxes, foreign policy, executive power, etc. His only overwhelming concern is trying to shame the country into enacting an anti-gay agenda. At the same time, however, his own theology dictates that there is no way this country can do anything; he believes that gays are taking over the country BECAUSE God turned his back on the US. His extreme Calvinism says that all if pre-ordained. (I spent a day on his website, and he has a section on how God doesn't hate people because they're gay, people are gay because God hates them.) With that in mind, no group would be willing to include him. He is outside the political boundaries. Researcher 00:03, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Nice work Researcher. Yes, he's just a loonie without a home, eh? human 01:33, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Fortunately for all of us, yes he is. Even as homophobic as the current Republican party is, his hatred of America and its troops is enough for many of them to consider him a liberal or leftist. (Not that the liberal mainstream in this country has ever hated the military, despite what conservatives say.) Researcher 12:02, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Phelps is also vehemetly opposed to abortion which is also considered a conservative position. --Uncle J 22:24, 29 November 2007 (EST)

I just think it's great that with CP calling him a leftist, we can honestly say that CP is to the right of Fred Phelps. ("Conservapedia: when wanting to kill gays just isn't quite enough!") DickTurpis 23:10, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Phelps is farther right than Jerry Falwell was. He is in roughly the same position as Pat Robertson. I think Conservapedia just calls Phelps a leftist because they are embarrassed by him. You'd have to be Hitler or Augusto Pinochet to be farther right than Phelps. Conservapedia is extreme but I don't know if they are fascists --Uncle J 23:21, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Doesn't CP call Hitler a leftist too (he was a national socialist after all)? I guess that would make CP to the right of Hitler as well. Do they realize the ammunition they give us? DickTurpis 23:29, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Hitler was UNBELIVEANLY CONSERVATIVE he was not a liberal in ANY CONCEIVABLE WAY SHAPE OR FORM anyone saying differently CAN GO TO HELL Lulzno 22:04, 27 January 2008 (EST)

TomMoore

Well, it was mainly the idea that I would rather be on goatse than the GHF site. I figured it might not work well. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 03:33, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

No worries.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 03:54, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

I think it is a pretty lousy idea to have that up there, Human. Linking people to goatse stopped being funny a long, long time ago... if it ever was.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 03:54, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

And at this point you don't get that's a meta-joke? As in, we don't mean to send them there, we know they know what it is, and they laugh at the EL? (or, learn in a really harsh way... still better than the FP site though...) ħuman 04:14, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Oh, I understand. I just find the "learn in a really harsh way" part of it too distasteful for my blood.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 04:16, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

As do I, but what's worse is that linking to Goatse is just so last year. Get with the times, people! --AKjeldsen^{Potential fundamentalist!} 04:22, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Would you prefer tubgirl or should I go all out and link to "two girls one cup"? --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 04:31, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

(EC) OK, Mssr. WEB 2.0, what is this year's meme for shock links? Did you ever think this is not supposed to be cutting edge, it's a link we hope people, all people, will "get" before clicking? Freaking Danes... ħuman 04:32, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Try this on for size... --AKjeldsen^{Potential fundamentalist!} 04:37, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

We are way ahead of you, STS. ħuman 04:36, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Is that a typo, I see nothing. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 04:38, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Reload. If you do some research, you will find where this came from. ħuman 04:42, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Hehe. I googled the damn thing and it told me to exit. Clever. I got Rick Roll'd. It's family friendly and annoying. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 04:43, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Godhatesfags

I'm curious why the link to GHF was removed. It seems to me that a link to his site actually showing how truly obscene he is would be good?--WaitingforGodot 14:58, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

The issue is the site is vile and disgusting. The idea started with goatse being a much cleaner site with smarter content, with a link to it but not to GHF.com saying that we would rather be at goatse than anything to do with that monster. But sadly...EPIC PHAIL. It kept getting spammed by someone, variously Fr or Fre and just created more blips on Phelps credibility radar. -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{GET TO THA CHOPPER} 17:12, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Fair enough, I suppose. --WaitingforGodot 17:14, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

PS, do you think all these endless revisions of adding the link are the same person, or just ignorant newbees like myself? If it's the latter, maybe we could add something in the actual page edit text that is commented out, saying "do not add the address, it's against our better judgment" or something.--Waiting for Godot 17:04, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

It's all the same user, as far as I can see. With a suspicious name, too ~_~ Marginally Less Chaos!^Audacity! 17:07, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

lovely, cause that's what I want to do with my spare time. Go to a single web site obsessively and make one single change over and over again.--Waiting for Godot 17:09, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Maybe it's a bot? Seems more likely... --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 17:19, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

There are days I feel so stupid ignorant techie unsavy stupid, but... bots can do that? target one application and add a website? sheesh, what will they think of next.

Firstly: *hug*

Secondly: Yeah, a bot can do anything a regular user can, if you can hook it up to a proper account. I think the IP addresses that edit Scientology are the work of a bot. But, obviously, we can never be sure. Which is where our "Assume Really Good Faith" policies come in ^_^ I just like that thing, ok? Marginally Less Chaos!^Audacity! 17:34, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Personally, I think all of you are bots. :nods: --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 17:42, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

I haven't had much an opinion on this to date, but I keep seeing that GHF.com being added and I wonder why not? Isn't sunshine the best disinfectant? I think letting people see what they actually think is far more damning than anything we could write about them. DogP 16:15, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Louis Theroux

Anybody seen Louis Theroux's documentary on the Phelps family & Westboro Basptist Church? ((Watch it here)). Extremely sinister people. Fred Phelps himself is only in it briefly, & pulled the usual fundamentalist stunt of refusing to answer or even acknowledge most of Louis' questions. Weaseloid on 14th August 2008, forgot to sign. Sorry.

Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps

His father is Fred Phelps. Not this Fred Phelps, but a Fred Phelps. It's nothing more that coincidence, but how embarrassing. How many other poor people in this world are stuck with the stigma of being a Fred Phelps. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 07:41, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Lock?

Is it worth locking this article? Of the last 50 or so edits, only a couple were not vandalism or reverts? Bondurant 05:01, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

We very rarely lock articles, but I see your point. Every day we go through the same pointless charade of the same "editor" linking to the same site. How about blocking the link as spam? Totnesmartin 05:26, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

That's why sysops are considered janitors. We just keep on reverting. There is actually little point in blocking as the vandal brake restricts further editing. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 05:30, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

Given that we share the tidying up - we've all done it - but the vandal has to do all the damage himself then we're on a winner. We can outlast his (her? - I'll lay odds its a guy) patience and they'll give up whilst RW has upheld it's we don't lock articles Silver Sloth 07:43, 9 September 2008 (EDT) philosophy. So my vote goes for no lock. Silver Sloth 07:43, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

Ditto @ TM, GK, and SS. "Rollback" is fun ;) I've seen periods where each day a different editor has reverted the same idiot... ħuman 12:47, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

So am I right in assuming that the consensus is that in no way does this site want to link to godhatesfags, NSFW labelled or otherwise? Armondikov 09:25, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

You are correct, sir - IMHO....PFoster 09:43, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

I've locked this article for a bit, to save us going through the same old routine. Totnesmartin 06:39, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

I wouldn't even mind so much if the vandalism was occasionally creative and/or amusing. Bondurant 06:53, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Is anyone able to check if the vandal is always using the same IP? If so, blocking them permanently (or for a year, whatever) would be a better solution. I know it's not really how things go down around here, but I think we can all agree that this guy isn't about to turn into a valid contributor. weaseLOId~ 07:19, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

We don't have chechkuser installed we feel it is an invasion of privacy. We don't lock articles as that is oppressive and more commonly ends up with article ownership. If you see a Fred through him in the Vandal bin on sight. - User $\approx$$\pi$_{For best results always render PNG} 07:22, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

If we lock, he's won! He's on a dynamic IP so we can't block - he's only a once or twice a day thing so let the infant play.   ^Contribs_Talk 07:30, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

I question this "prevent them from doing anything and they win" logic.

But, more importantly, someone ought to bug Trent to fix up the vandal brake so that it targets other accounts with the same IP. Pink_{(I'd do it myself, but I communing with the infinite at the moment.)} 07:36, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

I'd also question "prevent them from doing anything and they win", sometimes's it's indeed a wandal's mission to be banned or get an article locked, however, I hardly count that as a "win" except by their own, rather bizarre terms. Media Wiki has the ability to lock articles to protect them for a reason, and genuine edits can always go through the talk pages. Besides, it's not a permanent thing such as on CP's evolution article. ArmondikoV^theist 08:31, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

He only wins if the's trying to provoke us into locking the article just so he can cry "censorship!" - and there's no evidence of that. I also think that a neutral outsider would see our point rather than his. Totnesmartin 13:38, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Given that getting demoted to sysop is a relatively quick process for any genuine contributor I can't see any problems with locking. If anyone new arrives who wants to do genuine edits then they only have to ask and one of us will unlock it. This does raise the question of the other targets - Susan's user page for example - but I would leave that one down to her discretion. Silver Sloth 08:43, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

This war with the vandal is encouraging us to add to the article and improve it. The same happened when some person or bot edit warred over the Scientology article. Fre and socks may be against Fred Phelps. He may want us work on the article. Alternatively Fre may be a bit silly. Perhaps he doesn’t see the effect he is having. Proxima Centauri 14:03, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Why lock? It's not as if we're overrun with vandals, if anything we're overrun with sysops. Gives us something to do occasionally.--Bob^{bing up} 14:08, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Heh, over run with sysops. Can we go sweep up Wallstreet and MainStreet. I hear they are going to need our janatorial skills soon. I do have one serious suggestion. Can we make a "no include" comment on the Editing page to state "Good intentioned editors, RW refrains from linking to trash" or something? I know when I very first showed up, I had to ask why a user's work was being undone (not getting it had a long history).--En attendant Godot_{"«Curiosity is insubordination in its purest form. V.Nabokov»} 15:55, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

We've got enough sysops to keep revertinmg this. As it is the wandalism only lasts a few minutes. It's such a well known wandal target that it gets spotted almost immediately. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 15:57, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

I agree this page & other articles shouldn't be locked. But what about the Main Page (Fred's other target)? Virtually all edits to it are vandalism & reversions. If any changes need to be made to Main Page, it would usually be by a sysop or above anyway. So would locking the Main Page be sensible? weaseLOId~ 15:59, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Musteloid, I have previously locked the Main Page as quite honestly I don't think there is any need for anyone to edit it unless we have a site face-lift. After all it just comprises a bunch of transcluded templates and people can freely edit any one of those. So it actually would take a bit of effort to vandalize all the indivdual templates. However, Trent thinks that we should not lock any page as a matter of principle and unless there is a display of mass mob power then he probably has the final say on the matter. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 16:13, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

vandal bin

If you see a Fred through him in the Vandal bin on sight. - User \approxπFor best results always render PNG 07:22, 30 September 2008 (EDT) -- This page was my first "undo" that I managed to not mess up. hehe. could someone tell me how to toss a user in the "vandal" bin? Sin bins I know, but Vandal bins. ;-)--En attendant Godot_{"«Curiosity is insubordination in its purest form. V.Nabokov»} 15:53, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

If you are a sysop you click the "Block user" button.
In the block dialogue box you will see,
"Note:Sysops can move vandals into the vandal group at RationalWiki:Vandal".
You click on "RationalWiki:Vandal"
Another page opens. You click "Vandal" to put him into the vandal group. You click "Parole" to release him. Proxima Centauri 16:20, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

I click on "Vandalism how to handle" in recent changes. That has a link to RationalWiki:Vandal which I added at the time. We really need to update the handling vandal page though to standardise what we do with blocks the vandal brake.--Bob^{bing up} 16:40, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Wouldn't it be easier...

...to just write up some HTML that refuses to save edits if they include "certain" web addresses? Wikipedia do this so it's possible. Totnesmartin 16:45, 15 November 2008 (EST)

And Conservapedia does it with "rationalwiki". It's not hard just to revert and basically, it's only this one article that suffers. Protecting and censoring just hands victory to vandals. ArmondikoV^theist 14:04, 24 November 2008 (EST)

The biggest issue I personally think is my failure to upgrade the vandal brake to get stop the new account creation workaround. I have am currently revising a paper for publication and trying to get an abstract submitted to a conference, all work that I really should be doing.....which means it is the perfect time to waste half a day recoding RationalWiki. 130.113.218.226 14:20, 24 November 2008 (EST)

Family

Quote: "forcing many of his children out of his family"; can you technically do this? He can disown them, but they're still family, aren't they? Frohlich 11:13, 28 December 2008 (EST)

Technically yes. In the Louis Theroux documentary, Phelps was very cagey on the subject & refused to answer Theroux's questions about how many children he had in total. wassaiLOId~ 12:38, 28 December 2008 (EST)

Abuse and torture

I replaced the line about abuse and psychological torture with an actual quote from the referenced article - -which does not seem to contain the word "torture" and qualifies the word a"abuse" with "alleged." PFoster 18:58, 28 December 2008 (EST)

Oops, I meant to add a new reference on all that, but I copied the wrong bit of text from Word. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 04:25, 29 December 2008 (EST)

human being.

i KNOW it's a joke, and if people think I'm taking it too seriously, hell, revert me...but: even the worst mass murdering ideologue, even the most hate-filled troglodyte is still a human being. I don't think we can ever lose sight of that--it's why I oppose the death penalty under any circumstances (even, like Hitler, if he'd been caught alive...) Phelps is a lot of things--and human is one of them. Does that make sense? TheoryOfPractice 13:25, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Fair enough I suppose. If he wasn't human, it'd almost be a decent excuse for whatever it is that he is. Asshole, preacher, c**t, visionary, whatever, the thing is is that they all require being human first. ArmondikoV^theist 14:10, 19 January 2009 (EST)

This Wandalism

Is getting out of hand. I vote that we put RW in nite moad. Neveruse513 13:38, 5 February 2009 (EST)

NO! --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{Rusty-spotted catspeed!} 13:44, 5 February 2009 (EST)

There's no such thing as night mode at RW -- Nx ^talk 13:46, 5 February 2009 (EST)

I think he meant implement one. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{Rusty-spotted catspeed!} 13:48, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Look - we are running out of options. We need to make this a priority and lock the RW for the sake of posterity. This is bigger than just you and me. Do the right thing and implement night mode now. Neveruse513 13:52, 5 February 2009 (EST)

NO! --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{Rusty-spotted catspeed!} 14:04, 5 February 2009 (EST)

There comes a time when, during crisis, we must curtail the liberties that made RW what it is and which we've all come to enjoy. This, gentlemen, is that time. We need to lock this shit down because they are in our wiki and they are threatening our way of life. The only option is to take action and beat them to the punch. I don't care if this is a unilateral decision because it's the right one. Nite moad shall be implemented. Neveruse513 14:15, 5 February 2009 (EST)

I think he's TK. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{Rusty-spotted catspeed!} 14:36, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Oh I do hope so. It'd be great to have that fuckwit back. DogP 14:39, 5 February 2009 (EST)

What is a nite? Is it a mite + 1? And what have mites got to do with RW? Bondurant 14:51, 5 February 2009 (EST)

You guys can joke and laugh all you want, but it's only a matter of time before my night mode implementation is complete. Then we will see who is joking and who is being laughed at during normal business hours. Neveruse513 14:57, 5 February 2009 (EST)

If you do that, I will make your life miserable- I will block you permantly, and constantly reinstate the block if you restrict user rights in that way. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{Rusty-spotted catspeed!} 14:58, 5 February 2009 (EST)

You do realize this means war? Neveruse513 15:00, 5 February 2009 (EST)

(unindent) Prepping turbobanners. . . --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{Rusty-spotted catspeed!} 15:02, 5 February 2009 (EST)

(redent) Opens sock drawer. . . Neveruse513 15:04, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Coaxes metallic noises out of Special:Userrights... Time time Hoover! 15:11, 5 February 2009 (EST)

I took many Computer Science classes in college. It should only be a matter of weeks before I have night mode figured out and implemented. It is no use trying to stop me because I also know how to hack. Neveruse513 15:15, 5 February 2009 (EST)

It's a joke! Can't you take a joke? And if you do try hacking, we'll find a way. We always do. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{Rusty-spotted catspeed!} 15:16, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Unless you're out-sarcasming me, I suggest you take your own advice. Neveruse513 15:18, 5 February 2009 (EST)

How do you plan to hack the wiki, which probably has no common security holes and a secure root password? Time time Hoover! 16:09, 5 February 2009 (EST)

When you're like me and go to a prestigous college, you get to take classes like Computer Science III where they teach you this stuff. Neveruse513 16:15, 5 February 2009 (EST)

I suspect Trent will also know this stuff. Time time Hoover! 16:17, 5 February 2009 (EST)

But Trent is easily distractable/bribable with rum and/or peanut butter cookies. tmtoulouse 16:19, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Really? Time time Hoover! 16:21, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Checkmate. Neveruse513 16:22, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Incorrect, for I have rum and peanut butter cookies also. Time time Hoover! 16:59, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Incorrect, your rum and peanut butter will only further distract him while I totally git mah h4x0r on. Neveruse513 17:03, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Linking

Honestly, wouldn't it be easier to link to the site and put in big bold letters: JUNK! I mean, surely it can't be worse than Conservapedia. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{Rusty-spotted catspeed!} 17:03, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Read the commented-out text at the start of the article - "RationalWiki doesn't link to homophobic trash". Time time Hoover! 17:05, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Yet we link to CP. . . --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{Rusty-spotted catspeed!} 17:12, 6 February 2009 (EST)

They're not as homophobic. Time time Hoover! 17:14, 6 February 2009 (EST)

This bot is going to harass us until we finally manage to block it or we give in. The least we could do is turn defeat into a victory. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{Rusty-spotted catspeed!} 17:21, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Unless. . . if it is a bot, then protecting a section should work. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{Rusty-spotted catspeed!} 17:22, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis once said "Sunshine is the best disinfectant". I think that's very true in the case of this debate. I sincerely cannot imagine a better argument against WBC than posting their GHF site or even better godhatestheworld.com. The world needs to know what these ridiculous fuckwits think. I support the inclusion of the URL. DogP 15:16, 7 February 2009 (EST)

As the person who accidentally created the RW "policy" of "not linking to homophobic garbage", I concur, pretty much. Better yet, can we quote their garbage copiously in order to expose it to moar sunlight? ħuman 23:54, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Beat them at their own game. Link to it, expose the nonsense. TheoryOfPractice 23:57, 7 February 2009 (EST)

I have never understood this policy of not linking to it. The name of the webpage is the address anyway. Add it, add all his websites they only make him look stupider because he has created so many. - User $\scriptstyle 4\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-1)^{n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 00:01, 8 February 2009 (EST)

It was never a policy. Early on, I deleted the link, with an edit comment as described above, and it became fucking enshrined. Had a good run, though ;) But let's let it go. ħuman 00:05, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Today is a golden day in the enshrinement of Free Speech. Fred Phelps and his tribe of inbred halfwit bigots thank you Human for your great support of the First Amendment! DogP 12:34, 8 February 2009 (EST)

We have just gotten rid of Tit. --"CUR^talk 12:37, 8 February 2009 (EST)

I always wondered why we kept that policy even though we challenged it when it was about Metapedia. NightFlare 12:46, 8 February 2009 (EST)

I feel much better now. I'm not a bot. Tit 2 13:10, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Than what are you? And can we trust you to be removed from the vandal bin now? --"CUR^talk13:10, 8 February 2009 (EST)

I'm a weirdo. I don't know the answer to the second question. Fred 13:19, 8 February 2009 (EST)

I've removed Tit 2. If I look like a fool, I wil make sure you burn in wiki-hell. You do not want me as an enemy. --"CUR^talk 13:20, 8 February 2009 (EST)

I have paroled Fred, on the grounds that his half existence has been dedicated to adding that link and I can't see what other vandalism he will do. Time time Hoover! 13:26, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Finally! I never had any idea why we pushed this so much, I just didn't care enough to make it an issue. I like this much better. 216.221.87.112 13:41, 8 February 2009 (EST)

It's worth noting that Westboro "Baptist" Church isn't connected with any Baptist Convention. Baptist think the guy is crazy and gives them a bad name.

Mediocre civil rights lawyer?

I'm under the impression that Phelps firm had some pretty decent results in the area of civil rights. Is it really accurate to describe him as a mediocre civil rights lawyer? He has had some crazy moments, but from what I read he did some decent work. Any objections to me ditching that phrasing? --^{Ask me about your mother} 21:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Any links to that? (I don't mean I don't believe you, but it sounds intersting - I don't imagine Phelps being a civil rights campaigner!) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 21:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll do some digging around. I've listened to a few discussions about Phelps, so I'll check their sources. I could be wrong, but the impression from the discussions is one of Phelps actually being pretty admirable in his civil rights work. --^{Ask me about your mother} 21:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The impression you get from Addicted to Hate is that he was a corrupt lawyer with a poor track record in the civil rights area; it recounts an incident in which he sued for vast amounts of money all the way to federal court over a bruise the size of a quarter. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I'll bear that in mind while checking some sources. --^{Ask me about your mother} 21:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

reversion explained

Phelps has specifically lashed out against lady gaga...it's all over youtube PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 06:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but is it really relevant to our mission? If so, how? Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 07:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I see your point...seem like she still belongs on the list,tho, since he specifically called her out in one of his video sermons PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 07:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, especially since you did not create a red-link in the process. Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 07:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm learning...PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 07:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

btw I used "rollback" when I think I should have used "undo" or the talk page first...my bad PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 00:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Meh, no problem. Every now and then some angry old man of an editor comes out of his cave and does the same thing to everyone he thinks is threatening his Wiki. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 01:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't Shirley Phelps-Roperher head covered!!

So I search her name in Google images and got this.

Now according to 1 Corinthians 11:5 (here's a good link).

"But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with [her] head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven."
King James Bible

Now how does this so-called Christian fundamentalist explain that?!?206.130.174.42 (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Fred isn't a fundie in the same vein as evangelicals. He's more of a "I'll make shit up within the framework of Christianity and tell everyone it's right" Christian. Xaphnir (talk) 05:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The Protestant Reformers were a little ambiguous about the head covering. Luther thought that the verse was to be taken in the context of the Corinthian church, which meant that as long as women did not mean to cause offense, they could go bareheaded in church. I do not know all Calvin said about it. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Is Fred Phelps's the Devil?

206.130.174.42 (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, why not. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Fred's "work ethic"

i found this from the southern poverty law center and threw it in the article. it seems relevant "It was an unusual family by any account. From a young age, Fred Phelps' children earned a major part of the family's income, perhaps even all of it, when they were required to sell candy door-to-door for hours after school each day." from the southern poverty law center while replacing several of the broken references hope this is decent enough to stayNailo1 (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Phelps on Spanish TV!

Mr Phelps was recently interviewed in a Spanish TV program called "Salvados", in which its main presenter, Jordi Évole, travels somewhere in the world and interviews a person or people about whom he appreciates people would like to hear about. I didn't get to see the program (they were putting [Los Protegidos] at the same time, dammit!), but I've heard it was an interesting one. Thoughts? -- RationalSpanish ^{Sí, soy español, ¿y qué?} 18:58 (GMT+1) 27 March 2011.

I'm kind of torn. I think that he gets too much attention, but then I wonder if him appearing in mainstream media helps to undermine religion, or would the majority of people dismiss Phelps as a religious nutjob, before nicking off to church to talk to statues and eat their messiah in convenient cracker form? Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 17:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Those who divide the world

... into the saved and the damned, for some strange reason are always among the saved. (Paraphrasing a journalist commenting on such metters.) 212.85.6.26 (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

What do the Phelps clan do for a living?

I know that several of the members have law degrees, but they don't run their own law firm and represent clients in court cases. So what the hell do they do to make money? Are they on welfare or something? Maybe that's why they have so many kids - so they can get government child welfare and live off of it. I can't imagine any of them having a regular job, who hire them? Or maybe they're on disability income for mental illness.

Either that or Fred Phelps has bunch of savings in his bank account from his days as a lawyer, and they just live off of that.--70.254.44.240 (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Sue people. - π 12:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Celebrity preachers aren't exactly short on income. WBC is funded by its small but loopy congregation, most of whom presumably hold down jobs. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Piss people off. Sue Them. Get the fucking ACLU to pick up the tab. Nightwish (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

....Profit! - π 12:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

fred phelps hates joya

absolutely true! joya^{BAD KITTY!} 01:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

and being as i am computer/wiki challenged i cannot figure out who it is who sticks me in here and there while i ramble around aimlessly. You should know that i giggle with glee every time. But more to the point is there any info here about any of dear freds so called unloyal children? One of his sons has a website and is now an outspoken atheist. I am looking for my first real editing contribution joya^{BAD KITTY!} 01:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I laughed my guts out when I read he hates me too! It is a badge of honour....!

Remove from category 'Pray The Gay Away'?

I noticed Freddy is in the PTGA category and I don't think he should be. If memory serves, neither Fred nor his cult members have mentioned reparative therapy (albeit probably because they're run by churches that aren't theirs), and from Fred's attitude on everything and his subscription to predestination I'm guessing it's "once a sinner, always a sinner" (unless you're Shirley). Ergo, he doesn't seem to believe you can pray the gay away.

Anyone agree? Polite Timesplitter ^{talk to me sugar, but best keep it on the}_down-low 10:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the Phelps clan only believe that they, personally, are saved so they don't pray anything away. But the sheer comical levels of religion-inspired homophobia really does make him belong in that sort of grouping. ^bomination 11:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Er, Hate coming through a bit strong?

Now, don't get me wrong. WBC really deserve everything they get, but it's only fair to report what their actual religious justification is for what they do - because, oddly enough, it's much the same as any justification you'd give for the tone of this page. They believe their mission is to shock, to ridicule, to insult, all in order to encourage people to turn to what they believe is the right path. Ironic, isn't it? ^{— Unsigned, by: 82.45.198.134 / talk / contribs}

Not really. Our site missions and style are outlined here, and are actually not very similar to the WBC's. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

WBC is a scam. They use their notoriety to generate resistance to themselves, hoping that a local municipality will violate their Consitutional rights of free speech, assembly and religious expression...then they sue said municipality for funds to further their aims. C®ackeЯ 06:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Weaseloid - so you agree the tone of the page doesn't actually fit the mission of rational wiki? ^{— Unsigned, by: 82.45.193.38 / talk / contribs}

The tone of the article completely agrees--Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 16:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

We won WWII

It would seem that he has a point... ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 03:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

? ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

We defeated a gay vegetarian art student. So I admit the gay part is unlikely, but using it to insult racists is always fun. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 21:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Which racists would these be, then? Sophie^Wilder 21:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

That would probably be Hitler. There are wide accusations he was gay, he was a vegetarian, and an art student.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

So why is this whole thread on the Fred Phelps talk page? Sophie^Wilder 21:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

We were fighting the gay and won, now we're the gay and losing(?)--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'm and idiot.

The point was that Fred could argue that Hitler lost WWII because God caused him to lose for being gay. This would require the existence of a god and a god who gives a feth about people being gay. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 22:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I really don't understand. Everything Phelps says requires "the existence of a god and a god who gives a feth about people being gay". ^postate 22:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Inquisitor, are you actually basing any of this on anything, or just pulling "Hitler might have been gay" and "Fred Phelps might say something about it" out of nowhere while expecting everyone else to somehow know wtf you're blathering on about? Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, glad it wasn't just me. Was feeling really slow for a moment. ^pathetic 01:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Fred Phelps Hates Me!!!

I just happened to stumble accross the Fred Phelps page, and darned if I didn't make the list of things he hates... Right there, near the bottom... I feel special now... Reverend Lucifer (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Aww, it was just designed to put my name in there because I'm logged in... I feel not so special now... :-( Reverend Lucifer (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hee! You're not the first to be fooled by that! Scream!! (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

They don't know who fucking Jesus is

https://mobile.twitter.com/WBCSays/status/377212727346724864 I'm not making this up, they called Jesus a "long-haired hippy freak". ^{— Unsigned, by: 101.165.71.7 / talk / contribs}

My prediction

Now that Fred's dead, there's going to be a couple of years of relatively high activity for the church to try to prove that his death hasn't stopped their crusade, but after that it's going to start dropping off a bit. By 10 years from now, I can see them maybe doing this stuff once every couple of months but that's about it. We'll see if that's how it all goes down. --Kels (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)