` ::::I've gotta throw a few words in here.  I know this has been brought up before, but I think it got overlooked.  We're all debating whether or not to mention the qualities of being homophobic or anti-homosexual in the lead paragraph.  I can agree that ``homophobic`` might be misleading, as there's no evidence I can cite that proves he's 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.  Let's face facts (not opinions, not passive observations, but facts).  The man hasn't 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 ``anti-homosexual`` 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 don't 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 anti-homosexual in the world carries a mostly BAD vibe to it.  So, why can we list Hitler's Nazism but not Phelps' anti-homosexualism(/ity/ness)?  And, please don't simply direct me to NPOV.  I think we've all read over that policy and are trying to come to some middleground that doesn't violate it, but also doesn't treat it like the Bible.  Am I talking to a wall, or can some of you grasp this?   `