Ive gotta throw a few words in here  I know this has been brought up before but I think it got overlooked  Were all debating whether or not to mention the qualities of being homophobic or antihomosexual in the lead paragraph  I can agree that homophobic might be misleading as theres no evidence I can cite that proves hes actually AFRAID of gay people  However there is mountains of evidence that he is against gays in general the gay movement the gay agenda whatever  Lets face facts not opinions not passive observations but facts  The man hasnt walked a step spoken a word inhaled or exhaled in the course of recorded history without firing off some quip about how homosexuals are damning the world and what have you  I think antihomosexual is perfectly fitting in the lead paragraph   had a very good point when he or she wrote if someone is famous for something that many consider a negative attribute we still have to indicate that NPOV  hagiography  An example of this and this is what I mean by this being brought up before is the article for Adolf Hitler  The same condition applies here  Inarguably he is famous for something that many consider a negative attribute  The majority of people probably dont hold the guy to very high standards for his involvement with the Nazi party  Yet this bit of information is listed in the lead sentence of his article  Being the most prominent Nazi in history is definitely considered BAD by the majority of people  Also being the most prominent antihomosexual in the world carries a mostly BAD vibe to it  So why can we list Hitlers Nazism but not Phelps antihomosexualismityness  And please dont simply direct me to NPOV  I think weve all read over that policy and are trying to come to some middleground that doesnt violate it but also doesnt treat it like the Bible  Am I talking to a wall or can some of you grasp this