Talk:Sally Kern

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

Comment[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Lies about death threats[edit]

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)[reply]

"Homosexual agenda" not "homosexuality"[edit]

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

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

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


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.  — AMK1211talk! 18:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Controversy section[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.  — AMK1211talk! 02:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Why? Why would we delete notable and verifiable material from the wiki? Celarnor Talk to me 07:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
How about cutting out your attitude and maybe I'll discuss this with you. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 08:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yeah, I also said what was quoted in my previous comment. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 11:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Article biased[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

exactly --218.91.215.204 (talk) 06:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the poster of the original comment, Jpmaximilian: You are absolutely, totally wrong. The purpose of this article is to provide an accurate, unbiased biographical overview of the subject, Sally Kern. If you happen to be of the radical leftist persuasion and you came here to write a smear job about someone whose conservative views and works you find disagreeable, get lost. Your participation in Wikipedia is neither wanted nor needed. — QuicksilverT @ 03:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from personal attacks, Quicksilver. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Videos of the rally[edit]

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)[reply]

Status of Bill?[edit]

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)[reply]

Added. Celarnor Talk to me 00:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs work[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Categories[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Third opinion from Cyclonenim[edit]

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. —CyclonenimT@lk? 15:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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. —CyclonenimT@lk? 00:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checco's opinion[edit]

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)[reply]

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. —CyclonenimT@lk? 17:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Annie Oakley[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Firearm Possession section[edit]

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)[reply]

To clarify, Oklahoma does prohibit carrying a firearm into a government building, even if the bearer has a concealed weapons permit. (see [4]). If the allegation is true, Sally Kern did break the law. What is in doubt is why she wasn't prosecuted? (I am an Oklahoma lawyer for whatever it is worth but am also a critic of Kern so take my thoughts with a grain of salt) Jmbranum (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not get it. She was not charged with anything or even arrested. This just leads to nothing. I believe you guys (at the time) were suffering from recentism. The Red Peacock (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Red Peacock on the fire arms posession. Who cares? Was it really notable? I get the impression that this is akin to a speeding ticket. As far as I can tell, she was not planning on using the gun, and just made a bone headed mistake. This incident does not seem to define her or reflect who she is. She didn't start making the rounds supporting her right to carry a gun into the building (or mea culpa'ing) If she were ever nominated for governor, I doubt the papers would use "Politician who tried to bring gun into capital building nominated for Governor." Unless somebody can present a compelling reason, I will remove this section. --Bertrc (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
. . . Okay. I will remove it. --Bertrc (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Homophobia category (redux)[edit]

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)[reply]

It's proportionally about the same as the Anita Bryant article; I've restored it again. --EqualRights (talk) 02:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The "Statements on Homosexuality" section comprises more than half (~56%) of the article text. More importantly, her homophobia was the main reason she became a public figure outside her state. (Please also consider the discussions that have taken place previously; you are not the sole judge for the application of the category and should be seeking an adjustment of the consensus.) --EqualRights (talk) 11:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the category does belong. I don't think percentage of article is a good criteria, but, even with that criteria, a large percentage of the article is dedicated to her remarks. Secondly, and more importantly, I believe she is particularly know for her stance against homosexuality; it seems the only reason most people outside Oklahoma know her is because of her remarks. Lastly, I don't know the wiki policy, but somebody brought in an outside editor to mediate this dispute (see the discussions above) and the mediator fell on the side of including the category. --Bertrc (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely include the category as this was huge news - it was quite surprising to hear such rhetoric and homophobic statements from an elected official at their level. Agree with Bertrc that she gained much wider notoriety because of this. Anyone doing a reasonable review of homophobia in U.S. politics would see the connecting dots from Anita Bryant in the 1970s to Kern in the 2000s. -- Banjeboi 21:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, adding her to the Category:Homophobia is saying that this person's career is built on her homophobic remarks. Just like Anita Bryant and Fred Phelps. Because that's what this category is - that the individual is particularly noted for their homophobia. I totally agree she said homophobic remarks, and that she got press for it. But will she be remembered in 5 years for it? Or 30 years, like Jerry Falwell? I can't fortell the future, but her comments seem more like Ken Hutcherson or Tim Hardaway than they do Jesse Helms. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what the category page says ("individuals that are particularly noted for being involved in the subject of homophobia. It is not intended for groups or individuals who have made homophobic remarks and related actions but are not considered widely known for their homophobic stances.") - you seem to be adding further qualifications. And if that were the case, Anita Bryant doesn't qualify either, since she was a nationally well-known figure prior to her becoming an anti-homosexual activist. --EqualRights (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The category would seem to support its inclusion. Looking at what the obit would be if the subject were to die today would likely include that they had stated some controversial comments, etc. -- Banjeboi 23:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I totally disagree. The only people in the category are widely known for their homophobia, not solely known for it. If you ask anyone on Castro Street to name people "particularly noted for being involved in the subject of homophobia, you'll get that list: Bryant, Falwell, Helms, and Phelps. No one would say Kern. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Satyrn, you are probably right that "Sally Kern" will probably not be the first name to pop in most peoples heads when you say "Homophobia", but to the extent that she is widely known outside of Oklahoma (and probably largely within Oklahoma) she is known for her comments against homosexuality. Try reversing your premise; "Homophobia" will probably be the first thing to pop into peoples heads when you say "Sally Kern".

I am going to re-add the category. I don't know how wiki policy handles things like this. I guess if we reverse each other enough, somebody can bring in an outside mediator again. Of the 3 people against inclusion, 2 seem to object to the category, itself, not specifically her inclusion, and 1 seems to believe the category only applies to those who define homophobia, but not those defined by homophobia. Of the 4 for inclusion, one was brought in as mediator, and they all think that she is widely known for her comments against homosexuality. --Bertrc (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had this on my watchlist for a while for some reason; I just wanted to say, I think that the category's placement here is extremely appropriate. Like the others who have spoken here, I think that the category applies to those whose actions define homophobia, and it's pretty obvious by looking at the sources that is the case. Celarnor Talk to me 04:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One way or another we'll come to consensus :) That's how wiki policy handles things like this :)
Believe me, I understand what y'all are saying - she's known *outside of Oklahoma* simply for her homophobia. But that's not what the category is for. The category may be improperly worded, but it's for people who are *particularly noted for* their homophobia, not *solely noted for* it. In other words, she may have said some things, but she hasn't based her career on it. And I understand the "reverse you logic" thing, but that's not this category - this category is for things and people that are particularly homophobic. When someone says "homophobia", what and who do you think of?
There's a WP:BLP issue as well. I doubt she would care, but the label "Homophobe" carries negative connotations, which means we have to be very careful to "do no harm" with it. Again, I doubt she cares, but it's one reason I strongly disagree with putting the category here.
Bertrc, "homophobia" may be one of the things someone thinks of when you say "Sally Kern" now, but will that be true in five years? The fact that we only have this instance from March of this year bothers me a lot - compare that with Phelps and Helms - again, no comparison. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the future can't be predicted; in any case, that is yet another case of reading additional meaning into the simple definition in the category article. If it "may be improperly worded", as you believe, it's your responsibility to work toward adopting a new definition. Meanwhile, there's ample consensus here again that the current definition fits this case. --EqualRights (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
When someone says "homophobia", Sally Kern is pretty much what comes to mind.  :) Until the category changes into something that it isn't right now, it belongs there. Celarnor Talk to me 15:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm totally curious how y'all can believe that she's somehow on the level of Phelps, Helms, and Falwell? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is an error in your logic . . . actually, I should say, you are putting words into our mouths. Nobody has said she is on the level of Phelps. However, people do seem to think that she is particularly (as well as solely) noted for an attitude considered homophobic, even if she isn't the number one contender. Five years from now, I do think that Newspaper articles will still use "Politician who fears Homosexuality more than terrorism" when she makes news. Heh, kind of like Millard Fillmore and "Presidents of the United States"; nobody thinks of him and he is certainly not on the level of Lincoln or the Roosevelts but he does belong in that category  :-) (Yes, I know that "Presidents of the United States" is a more concrete, less debated, category than Homophobia) --Bertrc (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think she's right up there. Anyone who makes statements to the effect that homosexuality is a greater threat to national security than armed militants is pretty much on the level of Phelps, at least for me. Celarnor Talk to me 16:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Honesty and truly? I mean, Phelps makes a living (somehow) wandering around the country "boycotting" the funerals of soldiers who died in Iraq, and he carries signs that say "God hates fags". How does one instance of a comment she made compare to that? I know it seems like I'm beating a dead horse, and you'll notice I haven't removed the category again, but I'm truly mystified how y'all can compare her to the rest of the entrants in that category. I truly don't believe she's a president :) More to the point, I truly don't believe her one comment puts her in this category. She might compare with Falwell if we only look at his "Katrina was caused by homosexuals" comment - but he made comments like that over a time span of 30 years - she certainly doesn't compare with that. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you feel that the quantity of actions taken, rather than the magnitude of the homophobia, makes one more homophobic? Even ignoring that for a moment, her homophobia is really what made her notable; it defines her notability. If she hadn't made those comments, she'd be a stub, and she probably wouldn't even be here. Celarnor Talk to me 16:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that's true, then this article is a WP:ONEVENT and should be deleted. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that's how you feel, then nominate it as such. Celarnor Talk to me 16:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how *I* feel - that's what *you* said :) My point is, she made some comments. Once. By quantity (once compared to 30 years) and even by quality/magnitude (her comments on the House floor compared to an evangelism career), she doesn't compare. How do the quantity and quality of her remarks make her "particularly known for" her homophobia? I hear what you are saying - she wouldn't have an article if she hadn't made the remarks, and you're probably right - but that doesn't mean she belongs in that category. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SatyrTN, reiterating my previous comment: If the category definition "may be improperly worded" as you believe, it's your responsibility to work toward adopting a new definition. Meanwhile, there's ample consensus here again that the current definition fits this case. --EqualRights (talk) 11:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, EqualRights - If I want to change the definition of the category, I know how. But I don't need to. It specifically says "It is not intended for groups or individuals who have made homophobic remarks and related actions but are not considered widely known for their homophobic stances." Kern obviously fits into the section "individuals who have made homophobic remarks", which the category is not intended for. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we just have to agree to disagree that she isn't widely known for her homophobic stance, then; its pretty clear most of the people that have commented thus far believe that she is. Celarnor Talk to me 22:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Degeneres' and Margaret Cho's remarks about Sally Kern should stay in the article[edit]

I reinstated an edit that removed the paragraph that recounted how that Ellen Degeneres responded to Sally Kern on her national television program and how that Margaret Cho made one of her only appearances on the True Colors Tour in Oklahoma City, where she commented on the Kern controversy. (and in fact, the Oklahoma City stop on the tour was added after Kern's remarks made national headlines)

I think it would be fair to say that thanks to Ellen Degeneres and Margaret Cho, Sally Kern is the most famous Oklahoma state legislator in the last session. It would be a huge mistake to not mention this in an article about Sally Kern. Jmbranum (talk) 07:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Listen, I don't care about what's written about the subject one way or another, I just care that the page is encyclopedic. Simply put, what's said on a comedienne's talk show is not encyclopedic. To the extent that it is of any value, Jmbranum has revealed that any value there may be is limited in scope to the political interests of those in Oklahoma. If this were Oklapedia, the edit is great, but since this is Wikipedia, it simply is not encyclopedic.
Jmbranum also highlighted the Ellen Degeneres show as being a national television program from which I infer s/he means the show is encyclopedic per se. The Oprah show is much larger than the Ellen show and Oprah just promoted a book about the holocaust that turned out to be a hoax and the publisher refused to publish once the hoax was uncovered. Talk shows are simply not encyclopedic. Its being a national television program makes no difference. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further, look at just how unencyclopedic is the following:
"Kern's statements were addressed on the Ellen Degeneres Show in a segment in which Ellen Degeneres attempted to telephone Kern's office.[20] Degeneres received Kern's outgoing voicemail message, followed by the telecom's pre-recorded message indicating that Kern's mailbox was full. (Degeneres' comedic response was, 'I'll bet!') Comedian Margaret Cho also discussed Kern's statements on the Oklahoma City stop of the True Colors Tour 2008."
What we see here is nothing at all. The comedienne called the subject, got a prerecorded message, made a joke about that. That is simply not encyclopedic by any stretch of the imagination.
Further, the paragraph is misleadingly written. "Kern's statements were addressed on the Ellen Degeneres Show...." No they were not. The comedienne only made jokes about the prerecorded message that the mailbox was full.
Not encyclopedic.
Then another comedienne discussed her. "Comedian Margaret Cho also discussed Kern's statements on the Oklahoma City stop of the True Colors Tour 2008." Big deal. Comedy shows make fun of people all the time and such things are simply not encyclopedic.
The whole thing is unencyclopedic and even tinged with POV and promotion of irrelevant topics on the Kern page such as the True Colors Tour 2008.
Jmbranum, please reconsider. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on WP:BLP, I'm going to go ahead and remove the material instead of waiting for further input (emphasis in original: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."). If compliance with WP:BLP isa met, it could be re-added, but the stated existing problems still exist. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think national media coverage of a state legislator is encyclopedic. (as I would say that pro-Sally Kern national media coverage would also be relevant)
I won't undo your changes at this time but think it is appropriate to seek input from other editors on this, as I don't see how that the disagreement between User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling and myself can be resolved. Ideally I think this should be a consensus decision. Jmbranum (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your opinion, but WP:BLP compelled the removal of the information "without waiting for discussion." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's one of the reasons I didn't undo your removal. I felt that if your argument is right, then the content would need to be removed immediately according to WP:BLP. I would like to hear from others if the public statements of Degeneres and Cho are in fact unencyclopedic or not. Jmbranum (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The following may be relevant: WP:RS. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clear bias[edit]

This article has clear POV and bias. Unofrtunately, the woman is clearly nuts, and I'm neither interested nor able to correct it. However, somebody should work to address the problems. For example, why is most of the articles substance entirely unrelated to her political career and instead related to her public statements regarding homosexuality? There's little educational or historical value there, but tremendous political and editorial value. Is wikipedia in the editorial business?

It should suffice to put 1 or 2 sentences in the "political career" category relating to her comments on homosexuality, with source links used to carry the extra details. This is not so noteworthy a figure that we need to go into that kind of detail here.

Also, who chose the two pieces of legislation to specifically feature in her political career section? According to project vote smart, Sally has sponsored or co-sponsored 30 pieces of legislation, and voted on perhaps 4 times that. Why were those selected, in particular? Are they particularly noteworthy relative to the rest of her work, or were they chosen to make a statement? Again, this article reads more like an editorial than an encyclopedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.143.81 (talk) 05:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement here is clearly biased and slanderous, anonymous editor. Wikipedia is not the place for that. — QuicksilverT @ 03:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not worth the effort[edit]

I think Wikipedia could spend its time better than featuring an article on Oklahoma State Representative Sally Kern. She is, in my opinion, a joke.

Sjlevine34 (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be nominated for deletion, do you think?

/Jonte93 (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think both of you should be nominated for getting your accounts blocked for violating Wikipedia NPOV policy in biographical articles and for character defamation. This is not the place for such activity. Find another forum, such as the Daily Kos or Huffington Post where you can vent your spleens. — QuicksilverT @ 03:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from personal attacks, Quicksilver. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Kern :"evolution is a faith-based attempt to create the illusion that something exists that was never there."[edit]

Quotes about Sally Kern[edit]

"Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media."

The journal record is a reputable newspaper covering oklahoma area. The quote is a interpretation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.206.47 (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sally_Kern&oldid=1206939303"