Talk:Sally Kern

Oklahoma State Rep.: Gays “Biggest Threat” to U.S.

March 11, 2008 http://www.democracynow.org/2008/3/11/headlines#6 http://www.democracynow.org/ An Oklahoma state legislator is coming under criticism for a speech in which she says homosexuals are destroying the United States and are more dangerous than terrorists. Republican State Representative Sally Kern was addressing a small audience when she was secretly recorded. State Rep. Sally Kern: “Studies show that no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted more than, you know, a few decades, So it’s the death knell of this country. I honestly think it’s the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism and Islam, which I think is a big threat…. If you got cancer or something in your little toe, do you say you’re just going to forget about it because the rest of you is fine? It spreads. And this stuff is deadly and it spreads and it will destroy our young people and it will destroy this nation.” Kern has confirmed she made the comments and has refused to apologize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.190.145 (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This story has already been referenced in the article with another source. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Lies about death threats

It's worth mentioning that she lied about receiving death threats after making these comments: http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080312_1_A13_hThey04584 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.47.117 (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"Homosexual agenda" not "homosexuality"

The following in the article violates WP:BLP. The substitition [homosexuality is] is not correct.

“ I honestly think [homosexuality is] the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam - which I think is a big threat, OK? Cause what's happening now is they are going after, in schools, two-year olds...And this stuff is deadly, and it’s spreading, and it will destroy our young people, it will destroy this nation."^[4] ”

See for example: http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080310_1__OKLAH74853

I am going to remove the quote, as it is not clear whether she thinks "Homosexual agenda" not "homosexuality" is what is the threat, and there is at least one source that quotes her as saying "homosexual agenda".

{cquote|A Republican member of the Oklahoma Legislature has received death threats since telling a political group that "the homosexual agenda is just destroying this nation" and poses a bigger threat to the U.S. than terrorism or Islam.}}[1]

{{editprotected}}

Also, the current reference for the [homosexuality is] is to raw video. Consequently, this is original research to infer [homosexuality is] instead of [homosexual agenda] or just use "it". The audio itself sound to me to be spliced, so reliance on a WP:RS transcript would be much better. Use http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080310_1__OKLAH74853 as a reliable source instead. Stststst41 (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I listened again to the raw footage. In my opinion, while she begins by talking about the "homosexual agenda," by the time she makes the 'biggest threat' line, she is talking about the 'homosexual lifestyle.' -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree FisherQueen. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 01:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPB7bTdz2xQ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.41.46.108 (talk) 03:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The full quote, from democracynow.com, implies that the "it's" is "homosexuality," not "the homosexual agenda." Either way, I think it would be more clear just to use the full quote in the article.  — AMK1211^talk! 18:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Could y'all be clear about the edit requested? From what I can tell, consensus hasn't yet developed. Please state your request clearly once it has. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

On that note, why are we missing out the bit about agenda anyway? "The homosexual agenda is destroying this nation, OK, it's just a fact" Mdwh (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I think it's safe to say she is anti-gay then? --Dark paladin x (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section

It is too long compared to the rest of the article. Some of the info about the homophobic controversy needs to be removed. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a very interesting observation. Thinking about it, this is an article about Sally Kern as a politician. One wonders how much stuff would be in the article in the first place. Sometimes politicians become known only as a direct result of controversy. In such an instance, it would not surprise me to see the controversy section being larger than other sections. Now I am no Sally Kern expert. But just guessing by the media reports, I'll bet this recent issue is getting the most coverage there and in blogs, etc. So it may be entirely appropriate to have a section on controversy that is larger than other sections. Look, those are just my thoughts at this moment in time, and I'm just one editor of many, so take it for what it's worth. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that 'Controversies' is the right way to look at the section. Kern's fight against legal rights for gay people goes far beyond her recent speech, and may well be considered an important theme of her term in office. From her recent statements, I don't think she would consider that idea objectionable. Perhaps this isn't a 'controversy,' but simply the battle she has chosen to spend her career fighting, and should be treated that way within the article. The article on Strom Thurmond, for example, discusses his fight against legal rights for black people in the context of his senate career, for the most part, and not as a separate issue from his career. Am I crazy in thinking that it's reasonable to approach Kern's fight as part of the context of her career rather than as a separate 'controversy'? I suppose it's more difficult in this case because Kern's career is not yet over, and it's difficult to achieve perspective on what its legacy will ultimately be. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I like that idea. I do not know Kern's history. But if any politician made it his political life's work to promote a certain issue, then that issue should be prominent on his page. Perhaps calling it controversial is POV. This being an encyclopedia, perhaps we should just cite the facts in an encyclopedic fashion and leave it to the reader to decide if that is controversial or not. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying APK, but this issue is what she's notable for. This article didn't even exist before she made those comments, because no one cares about state-level politicians in the US unless they're particularly notable for some reason.  — AMK1211^talk! 02:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that her recent comments is why she's now notable, but the section seems to be growing and growing, so I am just voicing my opinion now so that in the near future, others can look at this conversation and know that this one event doesn't need to take up the whole page. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Why? Why would we delete notable and verifiable material from the wiki? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, read what I said. I'm not implying deleting all of the information, but according to WP:UNDUE the majority of her biography should not be just about her recent comments. I said the section seems to be growing and at some point, that section needs to stop growing. If other material is added to her biography to balance out the length, then that's fine. She might be hateful, but that doesn't mean we need to turn her article into a controversy-only page. If a gay or lesbian politician had made comments like hers, replacing homosexual with heterosexual, then I'm sure the LGBT editors would want to balance out that page. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 08:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The arbitrary cessation of further improvement is deletion by omission; it's another form of deletion, only a preemptive one rather than a traditional retroactive one. The solution to this isn't to stop adding other verifiable material based on reliable sources. The solution to that is improve other parts of the article that you seem to find lacking. If you think more needs to be added about her history in other areas, than research and add it rather than saying "stop adding to this other section". Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 08:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

How about cutting out your attitude and maybe I'll discuss this with you. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 08:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Please cut down on the personal attacks and stick to the matter at hand. I understand what you're saying and where you're coming from, but the solution isn't to cut down on what makes her most notable. I think that a better solution would be to change the section to a neutral form of 'Fighting homosexual rights' as a part of her political career and include any other notable aspects of her political career that you are able to find (personally, I can't find any). I am bisexual; however, if Krysten Sinema were to make similar comments regarding heterosexuals, I would want it included as extensively as the sources allow, even if it got big enough to require a page of its own. Wikipedia is not censored to cater to any lifestyle, group or political philosophy. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't make false statements and say that I personally attacked you. Your last sentence in that paragraph came off as semi-rude. Anyway, you're totally missing the point. I'm not saying remove what is written now, what I'm saying now is that the controversy section doesn't need to continue to expand for that particular incident unless the rest of the page grows. Harping on about that one incident only makes WP look biased. No need to remind me of WP being against censoring, I'm well aware of the policies. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no way of knowing that you know about that policy. If that comes across as rude somehow, I apologize. For clarification, what you're saying is that we should completely stop covering new developments on her fight against homosexuality? What is your reasoning? If so, then the article might as well be scrapped now; judging by her history, that is essentially all that she does; she has introduced numerous anti-gay legislation and supported more of the same. There really just isn't anything notable about her other than her self-proclaimed crusade. It is the battle that she has chosen for her career as a politician, and it her activities as an anti-gay legislator that make her of note, and its controversial nature shouldn't hinder our coverage any.

Apart from the issue of omitting future material, this also leads down a slippery slope of making editors think more than they should have to when they make an edit. They shouldn't have to look at an article and say "Should I add this clearly notable happening in this series of events?" Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

OMG. How many times do I have to say that I'm referring to that one incident. "what I'm saying now is that the controversy section doesn't need to continue to expand for that particular incident" I'm not referring to other controversies. Quit trying to argue and please pay attention to what others have written. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just going by what you said: Some of the info about the homophobic controversy needs to be removed. Considering that's pretty much all she does, I didn't know you were referring to the one specific incident. You just kept referring to it as the controversy section, by which I took that you meant the overarching controversy of her political maneuvers in the field of homosexuals. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I also said what was quoted in my previous comment. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 11:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I might have missed something, but I looked at source #15 and could not find the attributed quote, "...her financial supporters contacted and asked to no longer support her, and a leading homosexual activist entered her husband's church last Sunday and took notes on her husband's sermon. At times, as a precaution, a state trooper walks by her side when she enters the State Capitol."Waldstein53 (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the quote in question, since I couldn't find it either. The best reliable source I found indicated that Kern had been exaggerating the number of death threats she received and the danger they represented. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I looked again and found it... it's the third story on the page, not the first one. But I haven't restored the text, since the linked source is the web site of Kern's lawyers... maybe someone else will disagree with me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's be honest. In removing the sourced quote you did, the section has returned to being lopsided by minimizing her point of view. Please, I know this is a hot button issue, but this is an encyclopedia and we have wiki policies to follow. Please someone restore balance to this section. Right now it looks like only people who hate her wrote it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Whenever someone labels a section "controversies" it creates an automatic POV bias for the reader. I've removed the quotation from the high school senior who, although losing a relative in a historical even, is not in and of himself prominent for such a notation here...it would seem.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 00:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree; per my above comments, I think that Kern herself wouldn't consider her views a 'controversy'; they're part of the fabric of her career. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Omitting a section labeled "controversies" creates an automatic POV bias for the reader as well, because it is acknowledging that it is not noteworthy when it quite obviously is. Even if she doesn't think she has said anything inappropriate I think we can accept that most of society would regard it as controversial and therefore it is certainly appropriate to include it in the article, if for no other reason than show that homophobia is considered controversial by Wikipedia. In my opinion the section was not long enough and now that it has been removed altogether is kind of disgraceful. Also in regards to the bringing up of WP:UNDUE I don't interpret it that way, I think it is appropriate to have a large chunk of the article relating to this issues because the issue is now part of how she is publicly perceived and therefore how she will be represented in all encylcopedias in the future.Kurushi (talk) 13:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Article Biased

The purpose of this article is not to provide information about Sally Kerns, but to highlight the issue with her statements on Homosexuality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpmaximilian (talk • contribs) 14:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can find some further verifiable information on the subject, please don't hesitate to add it. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Videos of the rally

http://americansfortruth.com/news/watch-it-rally-for-sally-kern-at-oklahoma-capitol.html is a link containing a number of videos of the rally for Sally Kern. I'm putting it here for people to consider when writing this encyclopedic article in proper wiki fashion. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Status of Bill?

According to OESE [2], which is sited in the sources in reference to the bill, it has died in committee. I'm not really a legislative expert, but that seems worthy of noting if someone knows how to do so. Vaughnstull (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Added. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Article needs work

This article needs work. Look at the "Political career" section. It starts in March 2008 with a single hot button issue. Certainly her political career did not start and end with a single hot button issue. If I were working at an encyclopedia company, I'd reject this page as seriously incomplete. Now I'm no Sally Kern expert, so will someone else please make this article more wikiworthy? Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried to make the section titles more accurate. Sorry, best I can do, since I know little of Sally Kern. --Bertrc (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Categories

Ammon86 didn't leave an explanation for why he removed the Homophobia category, and I am an eternal wiki newbie, so I am throwing this out to more experienced users. As per the definition of that category, I feel she is widely known for her stance against homosexuality (in fact, I am willing to bet that, outside of Oklahoma, that is the only thing most people know her for) It seems to be an appropriate category. I see several other individuals listed in that category. I want to undo Ammon86' change. --Bertrc (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted this category simply because I don't think it is appropriate to mark any critical opinions about homosexuality or homosexual lifestyle as "homophobia". Her critical stance comes directly from the Bible, and if she is a "homophobe", then she is no more "homophobic" than the Holy Scripture and every sincere Christian is. In Wikipedia there is such thing like NPOV policy, which I assume one of the goals was to make it a place for everyone, where voices and opinions of every person would be treated equally, and it wouldn't become a place of propaganda of neither of the side in eventual disputes. What I see is an increasing amount of attacks against people who have different views than pro-LGBT ones, and it is something pathological to see an article about a politician where almost half of it is about his "sin" of not having enthusiastic view of homosexual lifestyle. Ammon86 (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The definition of homophobia applies to her public statements. If you believe the category itself should be removed from Wikipedia, you should take that up with the administrators. EqualRights (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ammon86 - It does sound as though you object to the category's existence, itself, rather than simply to its application here. As the category stands, it seems to fit this article. I doubt you can get the category removed, but you could probably point out within the category's description that it is being used for articles reflecting criticism of homosexuality as well as articles reflecting fear of homosexuality. Maybe you can get the category renamed to "Criticism of Homosexuality" or some such (would that propogate to all linked articles?) I think that that would be a better path than turning this into an "undo" war. (Is that the term?) As for the fact the the article seems to center primarily on her comments against homosexuality, you should improve the article by fleshing it out and adding more information about her. I've already created separate sections. --Bertrc (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that creation of separate category named "Criticism of Homosexuality" would be not a bad idea, and I don't think it is necessary to rename it from "Homophobia". I think the latter one is overused and higly pejorative. A term that has mental-health implications, properly used to describe people with a pathological fear of homosexuals - the kind of people who engage in acts of violence against gays, nowadays is routinely used to silence everyone who don't support LGBT community and dares to criticize it. I think it is unjust and against NPOV policy to classify everyone who have some objections to homosexuality as a "homophobe". So a much more neutral category like "Criticism of Homosexuality" would be desired. As for the question of improving other sections of the article, I don't feel competent enough for this task at the moment. Ammon86 (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You're beginning with a false premise. Here are various dictionary definitions of homophobia: "Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men" "Unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality" "prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality". Homophobia is not restricted to pathological fear or violence. --EqualRights (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well then, according to you, every form of criticism of homosexuality is "homophobia"? In the Bible there are numerous passages where you can find contempt for homosexual behaviour - is the Bible "homophobic" then? And tell me, where there is unreasoning, and when reasonable critics of homosexuality? If I understood properly, according to you there is no such thing as reasonable critics of homosexuality - in other words, homosexuality is beyond critics. This is ridiculous to create a definition which excludes every form of critics, describing it as a "phobia". In the same way, I can create a definition of "Ammon86phobia" which would mean and everyone who disagrees with me, would be - according to this definition - a "Ammon86phobe", so I would be beyond critics. George Bush should create his own definition of "Bushophobia", and everyone who dares to criticize him would be "Bushophobe", a person of "Unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward George W. Bush and conservatism". Or going further, politicians should create a definition of "poliphobia", which would mean "Fear of or contempt for politician" and he would describe it as a pathology, and use it to silence every critical voice, because otherwise it would mean that there is something wrong with a person who criticize him. Creation of such definitions is clearly a nonsense. Ammon86 (talk) 06:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to create new -phobia words to express aversion, but they would be original work not found in dictionaries. To review: Kern's viewpoint fits the definition of the dictionary word homophobia and a category exists for this word; if you feel the category falls within Wikipedia:Category deletion policy, please bring it up on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. --EqualRights (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the homophobia article (Or, rather, the homophobia category article, for which I cannot seem to add a link) is a better place for this discussion. --Bertrc (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Your repeated inclusion of Sally Kern into the Category:Homophobia for her Christian faith is a clear sign of your own Christianophobia. As a Christianophobe, you shouldn't be involved in writing articles about Christians or in any form of supervision about them. Such behaviour as yours also applies for such categories as Discrimination and Anti-Christianity. Ammon86 (talk) 12:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Since homosexuality and Christianity aren't mutually exclusive, this comment is logically flawed; it is also a personal attack, so I've requested editor assistance from Cyclonenim. --EqualRights (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ammon86, if you believe her stance on homosexuality is due to her Christian beliefs and that that is pertinent then can you add some quotes (and references, of course) from her, tying her stance to her Christian beliefs? I only see her basing them on her historical beliefs ("No society . . etc., etc") and her political beliefs ("Biggest threat . . . even more so than terrorism . . . etc., etc.") The only thing in the article referring to religion pertains to her opinion that she received death threats, which she gave in some Christian News Source.--Bertrc (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, I don't see any comments from her against Islam. That category doesn't seem supported by the article. Heck, her (in?)famous statements imply she feels homosexuality is worse than Islam. Did Ammon86 mean to remove the Criticism of Islam category? --Bertrc (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Anybody mind if I remove this "Criticism Of Islam" category? The article doesn't seem to support it. If anything, the article contradicts it since she seems to feel Islam is better than Homosexuality. --Bertrc (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The article supports it because the meaning of "I honestly think it's the biggest threat, even, that our nation has, even more so than terrorists or Islam, which I think is a big threat" is that she thinks Islam is a threat. (If she had said "Islamic extremism", it would be a different matter.) She also purportedly said that Islam is a real danger to America [3], but I haven't yet slogged through the audio to verify. --EqualRights (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion from Cyclonenim

Hi there, I had a request from EqualRights to review this situation and give my opinion on the matter at hand. It seems to me, as two of you have pointed out, that Ammon86 opposes more to the category's existence rather than the placement of this article in that category. It is clear from reading about Sally Kern that she is homophobic, be it because of the Bible or not, that's what she is. Homophobia is an appropriate term for this woman's beliefs. I believe this article should be placed under that category and have added it as such. Should you oppose to this, I'd ask you to comment here before rather than simply remove it (as this has already escalated to an edit war). If you have a problem with the actual naming of the category, please take it up at the appropriate talk page. I'd also ask for you not to engage in personal attacks of other editors, continuing to do so may result in reporting to WP:AIV and subsequently a block. —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 15:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

So calling someone a homophobe is perfectly ok, but when there is an example of christianophobic attack, labeling such behaviour as an example of christianophobia is an offence? And as an administrator, shouldn't you be objective and impartial? But I see that some users have more rights than others.. Ammon86 (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

There are several issues with your response. Firstly, homophobia means discrimination against homosexuals, which is what Sally Kern believes in. This makes her a homophobe. Whereas EqualRights is arguing against your logic and against the removal of the category, this doesn't make him/her a christianophobe, this makes them normal in questioning things they don't believe in. I'm a Christian, for the record, and I still believe this article should be included in the category. Secondly, i'm not an administrator, just an experienced user, and as such I am still impartial. This has nothing to do with EqualRight's rights, but more my opinion on the matter. Feel free to gain another opinion. —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 00:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Checco's opinion

I agree with Ammon86 when he says that it is not "appropriate to mark any critical opinions about homosexuality or homosexual lifestyle as "homophobia"". That category should not be included in this article. --Checco (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Homophobia is defined as, according to our article: "fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuals". Reading the Sally Kern article, she has explicitly stated in public that: "Studies show that no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted more than, you know, a few decades. So it's the death knell of this country. I honestly think it's the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam — which I think is a big threat, okay? Cause what's happening now is they are going after, in schools, two-year olds...And this stuff is deadly, and it's spreading, and it will destroy our young people, it will destroy this nation."

I do not see how that cannot be classed as homophobia, as it clearly shows fear of homosexuals ("...it's the biggest thread our nation has") and also implies aversion. Her views can also be classed as discriminatory. This means she is homophobic. —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 17:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, Checco. When most people (sorry for the weasel word) say that terrorism is a threat, they are not really expressing a "critical opinion." Almost by definition, if we say something is a threat, then we are expressing our fear of that thing (we are "threatened" by it) Heck, after what we experienced, New Yorkers are afraid on terrorism. I would assume that, after what they experienced, Oklahoma Citians feel the same way. She is an Oklahoma Citian who believes Homosexuality is an even bigger threat than terrorism. It almost tempts me to undo Mrmcuker's change. --Bertrc (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, are there any circumstances under which Checco and/or Ammon86 feel that it is appropriate to mark anti-gay opinions as "homophobia"? That was a dumb question; I should have read statements such as Ammon86's: "I don't think it is appropriate to mark any critical opinions about homosexuality or homosexual lifestyle as 'homophobia'."

If the very existence of the category is what Checco and Ammon86 are discussing. That issue belongs to Category_Talk:Homophobia. Checco and Ammon86 may win their case there--if so, the categorization should be removed from this article, and all other articles in the category.

Whether or not the categorization applies to this article is a different matter: According to the category's page, it "is for issues relating to homophobia, including ... individuals [who] are particularly noted for being involved in the subject of homophobia. It is not intended for ... individuals who have made homophobic remarks ... but are not considered widely known for their homophobic stances."

The fact that Sally Kern made statements which were homophobic is not in dispute. The statements are well documented. So, the question becomes, is Sally Kern particularly noted for those statements, or is she primarily known for her other accomplishments? Certainly, her political career was of interest to a certain number of people--mainly her constituents in Oklahoma--before those statements became known. How many people, however, could say that they would ever have heard of the woman, had that recording not been made public on the Internet? Frankly, the vast majority of people who now know the name "Sally Kern" know it only because of those particular homophobic statements.

Therefore, unless it can be shown that Sally Kern is particularly noted for some other accomplishment, the "homophobia" categorization stands as defined on its page. Those who dispute the validity of the category itself should do so on the category's talk page. Rangergordon (talk) 07:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Annie Oakley

Would it be appropriate to mention her recent repeated episodes of carrying a handgun into the State Capitol? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waldstein53 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

By all means; the article is all about Sally Kern and all of her notable accomplishments. Rangergordon (talk) 09:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Firearm Possession section

This section suggests that it may be illegal, even with a permit, for a lawmaker such as Kern to carry a concealed weapon into the Oklahoma statehouse. This may or may not be true. The Oklahoma law is not explicitly stated. It would be helpful for somebody with knowledge of Oklahoma's gun laws to cite whether or not there is such a law, and perhaps whether or not Kern's actions may have violated that law.

(To be perfectly clear, I'm no Sally Kern fan, nor am I a lawyer, but I do think Wikipedia has a responsibility to be fair.)

Oklahoma does appear to have a "shall-issue" concealed-permit law with few restrictions. I wasn't able to determine whether or not Oklahoma restricts firearm possession in public buildings.

The article states that Kern "was not charged for either incident." If there is no state law restricting such actions, then the statement that she "was not charged" is misleading and unfair to Kern. If there is such a law, it would be helpful to find sources explaining why no charges were forthcoming. Rangergordon (talk) 06:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Homophobia category (redux)

I've just removed the Category:Homophobia, though I didn't know about the discussion that had gone on here. I routinely review that category because there are many instances of articles being added without cause - I don't know for sure that this is such an instance, but that's how I came across it.

The category, as it says, is for organizations or individuals that are particularly noted for their homophobia. To me (and the way that the cat has been used), this means people like Fred Phelps and Anita Bryant. Since the article goes into Kern's homophobia, for about 1/3 of the article, I didn't feel that she qualified as "particularly noted for". -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's proportionally about the same as the Anita Bryant article; I've restored it again. --EqualRights (talk) 02:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Um - actually, it's not. The entire "political campaigning" section (about half her article) is about her homophobia. She and Phelps practically *created* homophobia. Kern is a flash in the pan in comparison. I'm removing the cat again. If you believe it belongs, please discuss here before removing it again. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)