Talk:Bill Janklow

NPOV

The phrase "Though controversial" is used to excuse his speach and behavior with the text that follws and is thus not neutral. Why not let readers draw their own conclusions about his speach and behavior.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.20.28.21 (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2005

I am well acquainted with Janklow's record in South Dakota, but I don't have the time to do the research that would be necessary to write a complete biography. Janklow had a significant number of vocal detractors, and a complete biography should reflect that; however, he was also one of the most successful politicians in South Dakota's history, both in his record in office and at the ballot box. I think it would be unfortunate for a biography of Janklow to be written only by his detrators.

The current version of this article is really nothing more than a biographical "stub" followed by a more detailed discussion of his manslaughter conviction. As I said before, Janklow's career deserves a more detailed treatment of his assent in politics (including his career on the Rosebud reservation and his work in the AG's office dealing with AIM), his four terms as governor, his successful election campaigns and his failed challenge of Jim Abdnor, and his short congressional career.

I also do not agree with the assertion that "though controversial" is not neutral. In the full context of the sentence, it is simply saying, in a summartive way, that Janklow was a very successful politician even though he was very controversial. I think that any person who is familiar with Janklow's career would agree that that is a very fair and factual statement. His "speech and behavior" are largely not specified.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonywiki (talk • contribs) 02:18, 13 September 2005

Degree

This article contains some factual errors. Janklow did not receive an undergraduate degree from the University of South Dakota. While enroled as an undergraduate he was admitted directly to the USD Law School under a loophole that was later closed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.103.41.201 (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2005

Rape Allegations

why have the sections and the incidences of rape been removed? It seems wrong to me that there is no mention of it at all.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.30.203 (talk) 08:15, 15 October 2005

I would guess that this is because the old rape stories are based largely on rumor and there is really no documented proof of any of it. I don't know what actually occured, but I do know that there is certainly not enough evidence to appropriately place the information in an encyclopedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonywiki (talk • contribs) 21:47, 15 October 2005

A white man raping an Indian girl is not wiki-worthy, that was the second time he was accused of sexual misconduct, but who's counting?

Spencer

After the Spencer tornado, Memorial Day weekend 1998 Governor Janklow was one of the first people there to lend a hand. He stayed for about 3 days and was right in there helping. I have never before or since seen a governor get down and get his hands dirty helping in a disaster.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.137.40.178 (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2006–

He didn't do the same thing for the American Indians though after a tornado flattened many of their homes. Once he set the precedent to help people after a disaster, he should have done it for everyone who experienced a disaster.

rape allegations are a decade before

I removed the rape allegations. This incident happened in 1967, long before he was elected Attorney General. He was cleared by the FBI and the US Attorneys Office long before Indian Troubles began in South Dakota.

````Bill23rdpower

Janklow Manslughter Conviction and Civil Suit--NPOV discussion.

I reverted to my encyclopedia type article and removed the combination civil suit, tort claims act and political statement mishmash. None of it was compentent for a criminal law article. If you want to make a political statement about Janklow, then make a separate article or separate heading. If you want to discuss the civil action or tort claims case, this is appropriate under its own heading. I would think that political statements and attacks do not show a NPOV, and I would challenge them on that basis. This is supposed to be a neutral article.

Bill23rdpower 19:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Bill23rdpower

tripe

I have been off site for a few weeks and lo and behold the Janklow haters stuck all their original tripe back in the article. I reverted the article to its factual encyclopedia form.

Bill23rdpower 15:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Bill23rdpower

It is not "tripe" if it is backed up by the Official Transcript of his 1999 State of the State Address, proving he said it. The other source I added to the article backs up the rest of that paragraph. 24.180.148.67 17:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV problems

I put up the NPOV warning. This page reads like campaign literature. Where is the serious treatment of Janklow's record? I started editing out some of the more effusive passages, but man ...

I've clipped a few beauties here:

• While most public officeholders in America fly over natural disasters from 20,000 feet...
  • Uncited and immaterial. This is happy-talk garbage.
• He developed scores of programs that put prison inmates to work, learning good habits and preparing them for lives outside the prison walls.
  • Scores of programs? How many? What are they? Effectiveness?
  • Learning good habits? Can we find one reputable source that talks about all of these "good habits" inmates learned?
• He talked the Legislature into investing $6.6 million in the program.
  • C'mon. He "talked the legislature into" a $6.6 million appropriation?
• He encouraged the 1998 Legislature to pass two bills that help prevent fetal alcohol damage to children, and also help mothers straighten out their lives.
  • What are these bills?
  • This may have been the intended effect of the bill, but what were the real effects?
  • How can a bill help a mother "straighten out [her] life" exactly?
• He helped make South Dakota a recognized national leader in the employment of citizens with disabilities.
  • What does this mean? Did he sign something into law?

In short, the mailer material has to go. This is an encyclopedia for crying out loud.

A fairly disgusted JakeZ (talk) 08:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It does not belong in the article unless each item is cited by an independent source and worded nuetrally. Jonathunder (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Additions of June 4 - 5, 2011

Recent additions to this entry seem to be taking it in a somewhat negative direction. Wikipedia's objective is to present a balanced, fair, neutral perspective, with additions made being backed up by verifiable references, valid images and so forth. This becomes all the more important when the subject is a well-known public figure and when the nature of the additions is contentious, in dispute or, in some cases, incomplete. I ask and encourage editors to take a look at this entry, assist in cleaning it up, and assist in assessing the neutrality and accuracy of additions and references. Thank you! SWMNPoliSciProject (talk) 16:21 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The recent additions are factual and part of the record, he was arrested for drunk driving nude and he was accused of rape. There is an arrest report and the alleged rape was the subject of more than one investigation including by the FBI. This statement: 'Dubbed by some as the "pirate saint," Janklow amassed a fairly impressive list of achievements', which was already in the article, can be construed by some as blatant POV. 7mike5000 (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The defenses against libel are:

• Truth
• Priviledge
• Fair Comment & Criticism -- Opinions about the public performance of people who voluntarily place themselves before the public (The Cherry Sisters, politicians, etc) are protected by the fair comment defense. But what is opinion and what is fact? In Janklow v. Newsweek, 1986, (below) a federal appeals court said there were four criteria for determining if a statement is a fact:

a) The precision and specificity of the statement. (Calling someone a "fascist" is indefinite, and therefore an opinion; saying they had AIDs would not be).
b) The verifiability of the statement is important in proving it a fact.
c) The literary context in which the statement is made. Here the Harvard Lampoon might be treated differently from the Wall Street Journal.
d) The public context of the statement, for example, as part of the political arena, would tend more to be protected opinion.

Janklow v. Newsweek, 1986 -- South Dakota Gov. William Janklow sued Newsweek after an article described his prosecution of Indian activist Dennis Banks as revenge after Banks accused him of raping Jancita Eagle Deer. Courts found that the opinion expressed fell under the fair comment and criticism defense.

Section Follow-Up: Additions of 28 June 2011

Thanks to Parkwells for an excellent clean-up of the entry section "Rosebud Incident." This effort has made the section more fair and balanced (NPOV). I do think that the following section, "Drunk Driving/Indecent Exposure Arrest," needs a similar re-work, as it contains some mis-statements and some unverified claims, although I am hesitant to perform the re-work myself. I still believe the section's relevance is questionable in the bigger picture, although it may not be out of line to mention it in passing. It also seems a bit of an aberration from Wiki practice to actually display cited documents in a scanned photo-type format, rather than merely referencing them. SWMNPoliSciProject (talk) 20:02 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I'm trying to find better sources for much of this, as well as material for his accomplishments as governor - agree an unsubstantiated claim does not make it, and some of the present content is confusing - cut taxes but had plenty of revenue? I too thought it odd to have the affidavits of arrest scanned in; think a reference to RS, reliable sources, would be better. We're not supposed to be drawing from primary sources like that. Have to look at it all again; he reportedly had a history of speeding which the local media reported at the time of his 2003 accident.Parkwells (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Further thanks to Parkwells for cleaning up of various aspects of this entry. The re-working of the "Arrest for drunk driving" section is also well-done and goes a long way toward fulfilling what is needed to comply with the clean-up and neutrality templates. Posting photo-like copies of an apparent arrest affidavit in the noted section was rather irregular for Wikipedia, and the user's apparent objective in displaying the document could be more appropriately fulfilled by citing and linking to it as one or more references in the text. This would also avoid creating the impression that the user has a personal issue or non-NPOV "axe to grind" regarding the subject. SWMNPoliSciProject (talk) 03:12 30 June 2011 (UTC)

References

Content removal

This edit removed a substantial amount of material. There seem to be two issue:

• The content is taken directly from its source
• The content is being added by someone closely associated with the subject of the article

I suggest that the material be proposed and discussed here. Quite a bit of it looks constructive to me, but we have to make sure it's not taken directly from a source and that it's appropriate to include. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Missing reference to drunk driving

In the section entitled "Libel Suit," there is the following statement: "Matthiessen included a statement by Banks about the rape accusation and drunk driving incident."

This is the first mention of drunk driving in the article. The incident should either be described above, or the mention should be removed from this section.

108.250.49.213 (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)Ed Gehringer

A reference that mentions drunk driving was used elsewhere in the article. I added it to the section you mentioned. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)