Talk:Sally Kern

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.
LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-class on the quality scale.


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)

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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.  — AMK1211talk! 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)

[edit] 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.  — AMK1211talk! 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)