Difference between revisions of "Talk:Fred Phelps"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
MountainDew (talk | contribs) |
(→NPOV) |
||
| (225 intermediate revisions by 71 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | [[Talk:Fred Phelps/Archive 1]] | |
| − | + | ==NPOV== | |
| − | : | + | Well, I think we have a good NPOV version finally. Thanks to all who contributed! [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:32, 9 July 2011 (EDT) |
| − | : | + | :Um, there's a category:Liberalism still at the bottom. Not very NPOV if you ask me. [[User:BobJ|BobJ]] 12:59, 9 July 2011 (EDT) |
| − | : | + | :Also, not that it's a POV issue, but it seems about 75% of the sentences in this article (or the first few sections anyway) start with "Phelps..." which is sort of stilted writing. [[User:BobJ|BobJ]] 13:02, 9 July 2011 (EDT) |
| − | : | + | ::The Liberalism Template automatically puts it in Category:Liberalism. This is presumably because of (1) Phelps activist tendencies; (2) Phelps longtime Democratic party membership and associations; (3) Phelps repetition of the violent and openly hostile rhetoric of critics of conservatives and the conservative movement; (4) Phelps association with the ACLU. There's probably other reasons as well. |
| − | + | ::Please Be Bold in making the changes you suggest. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:15, 9 July 2011 (EDT) | |
| − | + | :::To respond (1) since when is activism confined to liberals? Many in the Tea Party are activists, but hardly liberal. (2) His associations with the Democrats seem tied to mostly the substantially less liberal South, and have long since passed. Does Strom Thurmond get a liberal template as well? (3) his criticisms of liberals are as strong, or more so, than his criticism of conservatives. (4) The ACLU is more libertarian than liberal, and are merely defending his constitutional rights anyway (as they have done for guys like Limbaugh and Ollie North) and have made no statements defending what he says, only his right to say it. [[User:BobJ|BobJ]] 13:22, 9 July 2011 (EDT) | |
| − | + | ::::Tea Party are activists? That would imply they have some legitimate complaint and are not just a racist mob of rabble rousers. I'm not sure I understand. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:30, 9 July 2011 (EDT) | |
| − | + | :::::Ha ha. Here's a link, there are plenty more: [http://www.teapartyactivists.com/]. [[User:BobJ|BobJ]] 13:36, 9 July 2011 (EDT) | |
| − | + | :::::Also, here's a quote from him, from one of the sources used in this article: "Phelps said Gore 'was the icon of the '''conservative''' faction of the Democratic Party' when he came to Kansas in 1988' (emphasis mine). "'He was strong pro-life, and he said he wasn't going to accept any money from homosexual groups, and things of that nature,' Phelps said. 'But there's no question in my mind that approximately in the late 1980s or the early 1990s he made a conscious decision that he wanted to be a successful national candidate, and he sold out on some of those critical social issues, because that's what he had to do to succeed nationally in the Democratic Party.' Doesn't exactly sound liberal. [[User:BobJ|BobJ]] 13:41, 9 July 2011 (EDT) | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Latest revision as of 17:41, July 9, 2011
NPOV
Well, I think we have a good NPOV version finally. Thanks to all who contributed! Rob Smith 12:32, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
- Um, there's a category:Liberalism still at the bottom. Not very NPOV if you ask me. BobJ 12:59, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
- Also, not that it's a POV issue, but it seems about 75% of the sentences in this article (or the first few sections anyway) start with "Phelps..." which is sort of stilted writing. BobJ 13:02, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
- The Liberalism Template automatically puts it in Category:Liberalism. This is presumably because of (1) Phelps activist tendencies; (2) Phelps longtime Democratic party membership and associations; (3) Phelps repetition of the violent and openly hostile rhetoric of critics of conservatives and the conservative movement; (4) Phelps association with the ACLU. There's probably other reasons as well.
- Please Be Bold in making the changes you suggest. Rob Smith 13:15, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
- To respond (1) since when is activism confined to liberals? Many in the Tea Party are activists, but hardly liberal. (2) His associations with the Democrats seem tied to mostly the substantially less liberal South, and have long since passed. Does Strom Thurmond get a liberal template as well? (3) his criticisms of liberals are as strong, or more so, than his criticism of conservatives. (4) The ACLU is more libertarian than liberal, and are merely defending his constitutional rights anyway (as they have done for guys like Limbaugh and Ollie North) and have made no statements defending what he says, only his right to say it. BobJ 13:22, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
- Tea Party are activists? That would imply they have some legitimate complaint and are not just a racist mob of rabble rousers. I'm not sure I understand. Rob Smith 13:30, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
- Ha ha. Here's a link, there are plenty more: [1]. BobJ 13:36, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
- Also, here's a quote from him, from one of the sources used in this article: "Phelps said Gore 'was the icon of the conservative faction of the Democratic Party' when he came to Kansas in 1988' (emphasis mine). "'He was strong pro-life, and he said he wasn't going to accept any money from homosexual groups, and things of that nature,' Phelps said. 'But there's no question in my mind that approximately in the late 1980s or the early 1990s he made a conscious decision that he wanted to be a successful national candidate, and he sold out on some of those critical social issues, because that's what he had to do to succeed nationally in the Democratic Party.' Doesn't exactly sound liberal. BobJ 13:41, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
- Tea Party are activists? That would imply they have some legitimate complaint and are not just a racist mob of rabble rousers. I'm not sure I understand. Rob Smith 13:30, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
- To respond (1) since when is activism confined to liberals? Many in the Tea Party are activists, but hardly liberal. (2) His associations with the Democrats seem tied to mostly the substantially less liberal South, and have long since passed. Does Strom Thurmond get a liberal template as well? (3) his criticisms of liberals are as strong, or more so, than his criticism of conservatives. (4) The ACLU is more libertarian than liberal, and are merely defending his constitutional rights anyway (as they have done for guys like Limbaugh and Ollie North) and have made no statements defending what he says, only his right to say it. BobJ 13:22, 9 July 2011 (EDT)