Jump to content

Talk:Shirley Phelps-Roper

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 216.234.100.88 (talk) at 01:10, 24 September 2008 (→Illegitimate son section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Baptist?

Not sure sure that "Baptist" is the best religion to list on this article. It kind of misrepresents the Baptist belief system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.100.44.98 (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion -- and as such, it doesn't belong here on Wikipedia. There are no opinions in an encyclopedia, no original research -- only facts. Shirley Phelps-Roper self-identifies as a Baptist, as does her father/pastor, and that's the registration of the church to which she belongs. So whether anyone disagrees (or agrees) with their biblical exegesis is irrelevant. We're simply here to report the facts, not pass judgment on them. Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that was very idealistic and all, but what I said isn't an opinion. That the Westboro Baptist Church misrepresents Baptists is pretty much a verifiable fact, since you can say that X belief of WBC is not present in the set of all beliefs Baptist. The real truth is, this has published her errant opinion that she follows Baptist teachings. By the way, where exactly did agreeing with the exegesis become a topic? I think you brought that up, because what I said had nothing to do with opinions or disagreements.
Apparently you have a philosophy background? Remember what truth actually is. "That's your opinion -- and as such, it doesn't belong here on Wikipedia." Really? Last time I checked, facts were simply opinions that were "proven" right by evidence or argument. At one point, everyone KNEW that the sky had big old floodgates that made it rain. Now we all KNOW it doesn't. Funny, that. 63.100.44.98 (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sarcasm is inappropriate and unprofessional, and as such I will not respond to your provocations any further than to ask that you please assume good faith in your future dealings with me and others. The fact that you think your opinion is "right" (or shall certainly be "proven right" someday) is understandable -- we all think our own opinions are correct, hence they're our opinions -- but they have no place whatsoever here on Wikipedia. We must maintain an absolutely neutral, detached, non-judgmental point of view. Your original point was that you're "not sure sure that 'Baptist' is the best religion to list on this article", and that "it kind of misrepresents the Baptist belief system" -- and my response to that still stands: that's your opinion, your judgment passed on how well (or not) her professed beliefs match up to your idea of proper/true/actual Baptist beliefs (which, may I point out, are wide and varied and open to interpretation; I'm sure there are some folks out there who feel that her exegesis can be said to fall squarely within the set of "Baptist beliefs"...which, again, are varied). And while you're fully entitled to think that, it doesn't belong here on Wikipedia per several established policies and guidelines (WP:NPOV being the flagship one). A personal blog, a diary, a journal, a personal website, an editorial -- those places would be much more appropriate venues. Wikipedia is supposed to be like quality journalism -- we're here to simply report the facts (there is no original reserach/original thought allowed here whatsoever)...we're not here to make them, judge them, selectively include or exclude them to express a point of view or accomplish an agenda, pontificate upon them, or do anything other than simply report them. Shirley says she's a Baptist, she's a member of a Baptist church whose preacher was ordained by a Baptist minister and preaches the Five Points of Calvanism, etc...so it's not like this is some Internet hoax or supposition; there's no lack of concrete proof that this is all true, so it's therefore well-referenced and appropriate for here. Passing opinions such as "I'm a Baptist, and I disagree with her beliefs, and I've never met a Baptist who agrees with them, so therefore she must not be a Baptist", on the other hand, is not. Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 03:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ron & Fez

While Shirley makes appearances on many radio programs, it's an oversight to exclude Ron & Fez after Stern. I believe she has made more appearances on their show compared to Carolla, and Carolla is mentioned in the article. 24.47.159.180

Spam

A user continuously adds a promotional link to a nn show link under Wikipedia:Notability that is considered spam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cuberds (talk • contribs) .

Unlike you on Chris DiBona? It is notable as it an interview with her about her opinions and not just a bunch of fans gushing over a "celebrity". - Mike Beckham 00:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that Cuberds was told that a link added to Chris DiBona was unwelcome, and is now attempting to make a point by deleting existing links from other articles. Refer to the user's contribs and talk page. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 00:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addicted to Hate

How is this an unreliable source? It was used as evidence in a court case, and it's used as a reference in the Fred Phelps article. RedRollerskate 23:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not any more, it's not. And, all we know is that a website claims that this document is an unpublished book which was submitted in a court case. The judge apparently sealed the documents on this case, which means we have no way of even validating anything. An unpublished manuscript which may or may not have been submitted as evidence in a court case is not a remotely reliable source. --Xyzzyplugh 23:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bold Re-write

I removed a number of paragraphs that didn't necessarily pertain to Shirly Phelps-Roper, so much as they were selective bits of info about Westboro's affairs. This sorely damages the POV of the article. If possible, try to keep Westboro-related affairs in the Westboro article, unless they specifically pertain to Shirly Phelps-Roper. 72.150.232.218 06:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Too neutral a POV?

I read this article after someone mentioned her name and after doing so I had no idea what she is about. I only figured it out after reading the transcript from her interview with Hannity. Which is linked, so kudos, but shouldn't the article itself allude to what she is infamous for? Saying she appeared on those various talks/news shows doesn't tell me anything, because those shows have all sorts of different types of people on them. --Danny Rathjens 22:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking this myself. The article doesn't convey how extreme her views are seen to be by a large number of people. Triangle e 10:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should the current address of Shirley Phelps-Roper be added to this page?

The Phelps-Roper residence is information that is publicly displayed by the Topeka, Kansas Sheriff’s department, but should it be displayed on Wikipedia?

Comments? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kento Makalohee (talk • contribs) 04:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No. Obviously. There is already an external link to her official website. People can contact her there. wikipedia isn't a directory. --Danny Rathjens 08:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

The names of her children should probably be removed from the infobox. It doesnt matter if the information is available elsewhere, or even if she does not care about protecting their privacy. Its not encyclopedic--and I do not see the specific source, either. DGG (talk) 09:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is unsourced, so I pulled it. I have no problem re-adding if someone can show me where that list came from, but none of the references cited showed the actual names. I remember her mentioning some of her children's names when she had them on the stern show, but without a print source, I can't prove them. Optigan13 06:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updated photo

I would like to replace the main photograph with a higher resolution picture, but the content is locked. If anyone has authority to update this page, consider using Image:Westboro_shirley_phelps.jpg instead. Infolepsy 20:18, 16 September 2007FUCK YOU (UTC)

I actually like the current picture over the one you've posted. The current picture shows her with the signs she is known to carry to her demonstrations and her god hates fags t-shirt. Yours has a much clearer view of her face, but the signs are cut off, and her shirt is less clear. I think that signs and shirt helps readers more clearly identify the woman Just because the resolution is higher doesn't mean the picture is more descriptive or representative of the individual. Were the article longer yours would be useful for decoration or additional identification, but right now I prefer the current image for the infobox. - Optigan13 23:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom link to the YouTube video of her on Fox News goes to one that you have to log in to see. I suggest we change it to this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpNxwvKOpJk&NR=1 . Either way, it should still be labeled, not just showing the url. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.225.251.209 (talk) 05:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illegitimate son section

I've removed this section, not because there is no source for it or because it's untrue, but because I fail to see why this is important. It seems like just an attempt to put some negative content into this article, due to the fact that people don't like Shirley Phelps Roper. She had a son when she wasn't married, so what? There are probably Wikipedia articles on thousands of people who have "illegitimate" children, and we don't have separate sections in all these articles on this. This is a problem with all the articles on the westboro baptist church, everyone dislikes these people so much that it takes constant effort to keep the attack content out of these articles. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant because she vehemently campaigns against this sort of thing! Technohead1980 (talk) 11:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The child in question is now 30 years old or something like that, which means that she had this child out of wedlock long, long ago. The fact that she did something 30 years ago which she now preaches against is not any sort of a contradiction. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This bitch deserves everything she gets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.33.67.175 (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should remain because people want to know that about her. How to interpret it (mistake in the past/arrogancy and stupidity in the present) is your and the readers job. But I have to agree that possibly the only reason it got there because it's lovely to see someone so dedicated to... wtf has a "dark secret". If I'm not mistaken, it says that it needed to be uncovered. So she made a secret of it? In that case it's a contradiction towards her life and "teaching". --Kangaxx (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is probably relevant in that she considers any sort of sexual relationship out of wedlock to be filthy. She is what she preaches against. TommyP (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I too believe that it is important only because she protests against that sort of thing! If Fred Phelps turned out to be a homosexual, I am sure that this would have a big article!! - Remdabest —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree! It's Westboro Baptist that has brought the subject up--opened the door for it to be included. If they held no oppinion on premarital sex, it wouldn't be relevant, but they denounce others left and right over alleged sexual transgressions. Since she's brought the subject into the dialog, it becomes relevant.

mismatched subject/object in first paragraph

"controversial campaigns such as the picketing the funerals of AIDS victims with signs such as "God hates fags" and funeral processions for American soldiers killed in combat."

The funeral processions themselves aren't one of WBC's controversial campaigns; neither are they signs held up by protesters. One could make a weak case that the intent is for the 'and' to be a conjunction of (funerals of AIDS victims) and (funerals of soldiers), but the insertion of the phrase about the gay-funeral-specific signage in between the two makes it into an unreadable mess.

Suggested fix:

"controversial campaigns such as the picketing the funerals of AIDS victims and American soldiers killed in combat with signs such as "God hates fags" and "Thank God for dead soldiers.""

--Jrssystemsnet (talk) 05:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COPY AND PASTE ALL OVER YOUTUBE!!! Brent and Shirley Roper 3640 SW Churchill RdTopeka, KS 66604 785-273-0277 785-273-1080 785-273-0325 new # Fred Phelps Sr.-785-273-0325 Fred Phelps Jr-785-272-4135 Margie Phelps-785-273-7380 Shirley Phelps Roper-785-783-300 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.166.107.100 (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quote that say's loads

“They’ll have to strip search everyone who crosses that border or they won’t know who we are. They’ll have to see the WBC (Westboro Baptist Church) tattoo on our butts.” http://www.chrisd.ca/blog/1261/hated-us-church-group-stopped-at-border/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.237.23 (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shirley_Phelps-Roper&oldid=240580727"