Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fred Phelps/Archive 1

Fred Phelps

Self nom. I've worked for a loooong time on this article, to make it as fair, balanced, and comprehensive as possible, a difficult task when involving someone like Phelps. There is still much to be added, but in the past few days I've gone to work foot-noting the hell out of the thing (thankfully, "Addicted to Hate" and the Topeka Capital Journal put all of the interviews with Phelps and his friends, enemies, and family in one place). The copyrights on the pictures are solid, the subject is timely, and the article thoroughly researched. I think this belongs on the front page. Mistergrind 04:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Minor cosmetic objections: 1. Some sections seem to have a lot of short paragraphs which would be better merged to improve flow. 2. Incorrect format of quotes: short quotes (four lines or fewer) should be enclosed in quotation marks and embedded in the text. They should not be italicized. Long quotes (longer than four lines) should be formatted as blockquotes. Slightly less minor objection: The references section is very short indeed, and is called "Sources cited/biographies." It only contains three items, but it's not clear which is which. One would assume that a very long article such as this would have more than one or two sources. Perhaps the bios could be added to the external links section (which should be moved -- sources should be at the very end). Otherwise, distasteful a subject as it is, good job. Exploding Boy 06:23, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• As much as I despise Phelps and everything he stands for, we need more sources to back up all the extreme statements in this article. Almost all inline citations are from a single online source, which is apparently nor sympathetic to Phelps. Also, there are a lot of microsections, making the table of contents unnecessarily long; these should be reorganized. Phils 14:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Although there are only three references, the main one, "Addicted to Hate," is mainly made up of interviews with his children, enemies, Phelps himself, friends (such as Pete Peters) and members of the Westboro congregation. I debated, myself, on whether or not to include a lot of the ATH info, because it seems biased. Ultimately I decided to, because as I examined the book, although it seems biased, ultimately it is the facts that make it seem so; the simple truth is that Phelps has given very little to write positively about.70.243.38.28 19:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object
  1. The image Image:Phelps51.JPG has no source or copyright information.
  2. The image Image:FPhelps.jpg is claimed under "fair use", but does not have a fair use rationale. See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale for what's needed.

  --Carnildo 20:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object - Due to POV. I don't like the man either, but this article seems a little too empassioned about him being a dispicable fellow to be a good encyclopedia article. Take the following example (only an example, fixing only this won't change my vote)

In the realm of traditional fire-and-brimstone sermons, the one that Phelps credits for helping to develop his hatred was relatively tame by any standards: Christ inviting all men to come into God's service, likening the afterlife and God to a rich man who has made a great banquet and invites many to come dine with him.

• • Does Phelps really credit himself for devloping hatred? That's the sort of thing I'd really need to see some quotes on. The article makes some claims that I find slightly hard to swallow. Does he really think about himself in such terms? I've found that most people are pretty rational if you accept some certain irrational premises first... but this article doesn't present that side of the story. What does he really think about himself, and his activities? I mean, even the premise that God hates "Fags" doesn't back up all the things written here. I understand that most of what you have written comes from a few, biased sources. Would it be possible to find more sources to explain things better, and in a more dispationate way? Words like hate, while applicable to quotes, should be avoided in the main text of the article unless directly referencing a phrase someone said. Otherwise it colors the article in a POV way. Now, I'm sure he really is as despicable as you say... but can't we describe that in a more nuetral manner? Fieari 21:41, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• This is the problem run into when dealing with Phelps... people don't seem to understand that when the article is NPOV, it's not going to seem as NPOV as some other articles. There are people out there who just don't give you good things. There are other people, like Phelps, who due to mental instability, don't provide the reasonable "flow" you'd expect, and so people automatically assume that there's something amiss in the article. As pointed out above, someone who doesn't know much about Phelps would assume that "God hates fags" doesn't back up Fred's theology. These people seem to miss the point, which is made very clear by people quoted in the article, that they believe Phelps is mentally ill, a statement that would appear to be easily verifiable based on his actions and beliefs (such as that he'd like to see children adopted by gay couples turned over to child molestors). Now for the most part everything I've written I've done so trying to use as many quotes as possible, and to not try and make it anti-Phelps: I just present the facts as they are. So the constant NPOV accusations really get on my nerves.70.243.38.28 22:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Allow me to go into more detail.
    • "...an image emerges of Phelps as a ferocious child abuser and wife beater, who..." -- Is this original research? If not, who does this image arise to? Can we quote him/her/them? I'd argue that this sentence, as it stands, is currently and horribly POV. It could be made NPOV, however, and still keep all the facts, which WOULD emerge an image of Phelps as all that, but wouldn't put it in those terms. The facts alone should suffice. Don't push the point.
    • "...ownership of a book...", "In the book..." -- (Nitpick) Err, what book? If it's public domain, why not link to to inline here? Does this book have a title?
    • "In the realm of traditional fire-and-brimstone sermons, the one that Phelps credits for helping to develop his hatred was relatively tame by any standards: Christ inviting all men to come into God's service, likening the afterlife and God to a rich man who has made a great banquet and invites many to come dine with him."
    • In order to further illustrate the POV, I've attempted to reword the above statement in a more NPOV manner:
    • "Phelps is quoted [source] as crediting a sermon many consider to be relatively tame for inspiring him to his hatred: Christ inviting all men to come into God's service, likening the afterlife and God to a rich man who has made a great banquet and invites many to come dine with him.</nowiki>" (also, a link to either the bible chapter or the sermon itself if available might be interesting)
    • "he was part of a failed mission to convert" -- The word failed, while accurate, is a little strong and adds to the negative tone of the article. A more nuetral term might be useful here, such as unsuccessful.
    • "The campaign ended badly: ..." -- POV. You can state the fact without judging it.
    • In general, you state many things as fact, whereas they are mostly claims by individuals. For example, "At the same time, even though he had gone back to being an attorney, Phelps continued to force the children to sell candy." How do we know that he forced the kids to do so? Well... because the kids said so. But people can lie. I doubt they did, but in an encyclopedia, we like to state things that we KNOW are true. Someone could concievably dispute that the kids actually did these things. No one can dispute that the kids claim that they were forced to do these things. So change the wording to more accurately reflect your source-- personal anecdotes.
    • That's the biggest source of POV here... treating things recounted in anecdotes as fact, when they should be treated as claims... even claims backed up by a great deal of plausibility, but still claims.
  • The facts should speak for themselves. I agree with you, Phelps is a madman. But we can say that in a NPOV way. Fieari 00:16, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. No offense to your work, but this article has a ways to go to reaching featured quality. It is far from NPOV. Instead of making claims, it should simply state known facts. For example, an NPOV article shouldn't say "Through interviews with his children, family members, congregants, friends, and enemies, an image emerges of...". That is making a claim. Instead it should say so and so described him as... and His son says this and that, etc. That kind of stating opinions is pretty much throughout the article. - Taxman ^Talk 23:02, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Rant. I put this article up for peer review (link), and none of this was brought up there, in fact hardly any feedback was given at all. What is the point of having a peer review which gets completely ignored then when somebody does a feature nomination, all this comes out? Why should we use peer review at all? Seems we should all just nominate anything here, since it's the only place any feedback gets given. End Rant. I'll look at the language over the next 24 hours and attempt to correct any POV I can find in terms of claims vs facts etc and see what people think then. Djbrianuk 19:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • We can't get to everything on PR. Sometimes when I see an article on PR that doesn't have a chance to make FA I choose to spend my time reviewing something else. I'm not saying that is the case here. But what PR needs, is more reviewers that know the FA criteria. How many listings on PR have you reviewed? Only then is your rant justified. - Taxman ^Talk 20:46, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. This thing is gonna go down the drain, but I think it's pretty good and so I just want to give it a vote before it gets sent to "Former Canidate" status.Timmybiscool 16:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I feel it would give a bad impression to visitors to see this article on the front page. It would contradict Wikipedia's Neutral POV status. I think the article needs a few improvements anyway. Dantecubed 04:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • So where's the bias in the article? What exactly needs to be fixed? --Carnildo 04:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)