This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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}}
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
exactly -- 218.91.215.204 ( talk) 06:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Your statement here is clearly biased and slanderous, anonymous editor. Wikipedia is not the place for that. — Quicksilver T @ 03:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
Should it be nominated for deletion, do you think?
/ Jonte93 ( talk) 13:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
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. — Quicksilver T @ 03:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
"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)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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}}
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
exactly -- 218.91.215.204 ( talk) 06:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Your statement here is clearly biased and slanderous, anonymous editor. Wikipedia is not the place for that. — Quicksilver T @ 03:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
Should it be nominated for deletion, do you think?
/ Jonte93 ( talk) 13:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
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. — Quicksilver T @ 03:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
"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)