Talk:Phill Kline

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Church memorandum controversy and NPOV[edit]

To say something is "in defiance of XXX law" is making a legal judgment. Wikipedia is not a place for judging. The previous version is NOT weasel words, but rather was preventing a NPOV problem. This has now all been fixed. 134.193.243.92 15:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A recent edit stated "that tax-exempt churches are prevented from endorsing a candidate is law, not opinion." While it is true that the Treasury regulations accompanying Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c) includes a provision that a tax-exempt religious body that engages in the endorsement of a political candidate has the potential of losing its tax-exempt status, if the Commissioner of Internal Revenue takes such an action, a statement that Attorney General Kline's memorandum "defies IRS regulations," however, is entirely a legal judgment and a matter of opinion - it constitutes one argument, clearly one to which the Attorney General does not subscribe. He maintains that the churches are not officially supporting his candidacy, but rather grass-roots campaign efforts use connections through the churches - read, NOT any official endorsements by the churches themselves - to help his campaign out. If so, this probably would not violate the Treasury regulations accompanying I.R.C. Section 501(c). Ordinarily, the only way for a church to violate I.R.C. Section 501(c) is for the church's governing board and/or clergyman officially to come out and actually endorse the candidate - and then only if the Commissioner of Internal Revenue decides to take such an action (which is quite rare). Thus, a statement that Mr. Kline's memorandum and strategy are "in defiance of IRS Regulations" is one argument, but it clearly is not NPOV and thus is not fit for Wikipedia. It is far more accurate to state that opponents argue that the memorandum's strategy violates the IRS regulations, not that they actually DO. I have changed this to more accurately reflect Wikipedia policy regarding a neutral point of view. 65.28.2.218 04:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you've got NPOV exactly backwards. That 501(c)3 tax-exempt churches are prevented from endorsing political candidate is not in dispute; it is verifiable settled law. The article needs to state as much and avoid merely repeating Kline's (alleged, unsourced) opinion that his actions detailed in the memo do not violate that law. We can discuss here how to do that, but we will not be simply presenting Kline's opinion as if it were fact. He's running a political campaign, and care must be taken here to not fall into the trap of making his case for him. FeloniousMonk 05:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I made a compromise copyedit. I think we can all agree this. FeloniousMonk 05:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I quite understand NPOV. Saying something "violates a law" is POV. I am well aware of the Treasury regulations which accompany I.R.C. § 501(c)(3) on this topic: a religious organization which itself endorses a candidate risks denial of § 501(c)(3) status if the Commissioner of Internal Revenue determines as such. The question here is whether the Attorney General's memorandum constitutes churches themselves endorsing a candidate. That, clearly, is in dispute. Therefore, to blindly declare that the memorandum itself "defies IRS regulations" is POV. That cannot be appropriate on Wikipedia. 65.28.2.218 06:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, where exactly does "Kline has defended the memo and the mobilization of churches it calls for, insisting it does not violate IRS regulations governing the tax-exempt status of churches, which are prohibited from supporting political candidates" blindly declare that the memorandum itself "defies IRS regulations"? Please read the compromise content next time instead of blindly reverting. FeloniousMonk 15:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, you do not understand Internal Revenue Code § 501(c)(3). The language has been changed to more accurately reflect the Treasury regulations surrounding the section. This version should suffice for a truly neutral point of view. 134.193.243.215 18:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WRONG, previous version is much more neutral, reverting back to "insisting it does not violate" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.28.22.13 (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unredacting Records[edit]

Rachel Maddow reported (on 24 August I guess) that Kline was able to identify by name the women who had abortions at Dr. Tiller's clinic. Further she said the un-redacted were removed from Kansas state offcies and stored in a garage and later a private home and were photocopied at a Kinko's. I am no expert on this subject, but are Maddow's charges worth reporting here? The YouTUbe link is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoYONXKg7Zg Paul, in Saudi (talk) 04:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it merits inclusion. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 05:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Maddow's reporting, i.e., included subpoenas of the records of a nearby hotel to determine the names of women who may have stayed there in association with a procedure and following women who left the clinic to take down their vehicle license numbers in order to identify them. Activist (talk) 03:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

License Suspension[edit]

I don't write much here but y'all might want to talk about http://www.kansascity.com/2013/10/18/4560734/kline-indefinitely-suspended-from.html codepoet 15:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codepoet (talk • contribs)

Changed title. Kline was not "disbarred" but was suspended. He may apply to have the suspension lifted after three years. Activist (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My edits to this page were reversed by sinebot, and I'm not sure why. They corrected serious errors on the page. For instance, the title of this section was "Disbarred," but Kline wasn't disbarred, though that was the recommendation of the Disciplinary Administrator that was overruled. Kline's license was suspended for three years, with a possibility of getting that lifted if he reapplied. Given the breadth of his misconduct, and his unwillingness to acknowledge in any way that his practice behavior was unacceptable, I can't imagine that such an application for reinstatement would be successful. Activist (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post-electoral career[edit]

Last sentence added to paragraph was deleted because it was unsourced and redundant even within this section. "Aggressive pursuit" of charges by a prosecutor does not constitute in itself an ethical violation nor does such language appear anywhere in the Kansas Supreme Court's findings. Activist (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's he doing now?[edit]

Now that his law license is indefinitely suspended and unlikely to be re-instated, where is Kline now and what is he doing? Is he still a "visiting professor" at Liberty, or is he back in Kansas, or what? For completeness, the article should say. Goblinshark17 (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Phill Kline. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Director of Amistad Project[edit]

Shouldn't this be added to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:844:4000:F910:1D79:20D9:C67A:265D (talk) 04:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Phill_Kline&oldid=1208000434"