Talk:Akaka Bill

RE: Reverts

Hi Arjuna. As a professional editor, I too noticed JereKrischel's persistent reinsertion of connotative language throughout his Wikipedia contributions related to Hawai`i. I find it biased, particularly in light of the fact that he works for Grass Root (opponents of the bill) and already has a Website dedicated to defeat of the Akaka Bill. It's a good topic for a college or journalistic research project, in any case.

I agree that it would be beneficial to split the article into supporting and opposing sections. Equal time for both would be best, as long as one side's POV pushing doesn't end up in edits to the other side's. And the intro should be as other presentations on legislation and present cold hard facts without connotation or double entendre. Shall we try it that way?

As for mediation, without involvement of additional contributors on both sides of the argument, I doubt that one arbitrator can serve to everyone's satisfaction because it is difficult to be neutral in such a case.

Jere, I'm sorry I didn't have time for a point by point analysis at the time, but I will get to writing one soon. Can we agree to disagree and focus on our respective sections?

RE: the citations, there were some that I added that you edited out, such as the citation of the statistics and reports by the University of Hawai`i's Center on the Family, which shows numerically the number of at-risk children in the Hawaiian population (whether at risk socioeconomically, educationally, and/or other factors). HeartlyHear 05:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Mahalo HeartlyHear - my "work" for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii is negligible and purely volunteer, my title there purely honorary, and if my support of their mission of education would disqualify my contributions as being valuable, I think one could make the same statement of those who are proponents of the claims of native Hawaiian victimhood. We will all have differing points of view, but working together we can strive for a neutral presentation. I accept that you have a differing viewpoint, but I would suggest that what you see as "cold hard fact" isn't nearly as factual as you believe.

Regarding the addition of citations of "at-risk" population, it would help if it included clear indication of what kind of counting is going on (i.e., one-drop rule) for the determination of ethnicity or "race". Asserting that the Akaka Bill is predicated on that (that somehow it is a race-based remediation of poor statistics) seems a bit like original research, although if you'd like to cite someone who is making that claim, that would be a valid addition.

I look forward to working with you on making the article better! Mahalo for your kokua! --JereKrischel 06:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is reorganized to provide a space for definition, bill citation, and the various perspectives about the bill. Significant citation work has been completed, although JereKrischel needs to cite information in the "opposition" section. I did work on documentation for that section of the article too, but JereKrischel probably knows exactly where the information came from.

Somewhere on some other page that I can't find at the moment, JereKrischel asked about the style employing endnotes. These I worked on after looking at other Wikipedia articles on other legislation. I did extensive work on in-text citation codes (showing up as superscripted numbers) which link directly to the Notes section. All citations appearing in the notes section have full citations within the References section, as used in other articles and as described in the Wiki style guide.

He also mentioned the "bipartisan" descriptor in the list of supporters and indicated that as it applied to "delegates" so that portion was revised.

I believe he also commented about the "neutral" sources, so that has also been revised so that we are not presuming that any source is neutral. If they were not explicitely "pro" or "con," they went into the "other" category.

Still to be done: adding more citations, getting more understanding of the sovereignty groups' perspectives (in the "opposing: section).

There were many additional hours researching the citations. JereKrischel had erased the revised 7-section (8 if the first paragraph/intro is counted), citations-added article and put back the old, uncited, POV (slanted toward anti-Akaka bill), shorter piece with the long list of Indian requirements (without sufficient in-text discussion). Such wholesale deletion of extensive hours of work seems antithetical to the objectives of Wikipedia.

In addition, if there is to be an unbiased entry on this topic, it needs to cover all sides of the issue. The 7-section version provides more information (including proper citation of the bill), includes both supporting and opposing perspectives (in fact, the opposing section is longer than the supporting in this version), and includes more complete citation and references. HeartlyHear 13:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

A few notes - 1) the section claiming "clarification" is stated as fact rather than opinion. Akaka makes those assertions, they are not simply true. 2) Don't put tabs in front of your paragraphs on the talk pages - any whitespace at the beginning of the line indicates to the wiki that you want your text preformatted. 3) The references you've placed still do not refer to anything. Please put the actual URL directly inside the ref. For example:

<ref>[http://wiki.grassrootinstitute.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=2006-05-17_Mark_J._Bennett_Fact_Check Mark Bennett Fact Check] presented by the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii</ref>

Simply putting "2006, GRIH" is not a real reference.

4) Turning this into a quote battle is probably not a good idea - if we're going to extensively rather than selectively quote people, this article will get very weighty.

My apologies for the additional revert, but perhaps we can work on this one paragraph at a time rather than en masse - can you please provide me a single quote/reference you with to add, and I'll help add it? Mahalo HeartlyHear! --JereKrischel 15:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Updates

JereKrischel, who did not initiate the article and is not the sole contributor to the article (in a medium touted to be collaborative), seems to want to direct all contributions, particularly those that don't support his own POV: he wants all changes to go through him. Interesting, n'est pas?. HeartlyHear 02:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not asking that all changes go through me, HeartlyHear, I'm simply asking that we work together. I appreciate your contributions, and believe they can be useful, but currently suffer from improper presentation and POV pushing. We can work through this together - neither of us can do it alone.

Certainly you wouldn't appreciate it if someone else came in, massively reverted your changes to an even more divergent view, then complained that you were being possessive when you wanted to have a say in the matter.

Please, let's work together - please address my issues, and let's make this a good NPOV article. Mahalo for your kokua. --JereKrischel 02:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Regretfully, I have to agree with HH. We are clearly a very very long way from any semblance of agreement on what constitutes NPOV, which is why I added the tags. JK, I did not "characteriz(e) (you) as unorthodox or eccentric". I said: "your interpretation of the issues (is) sufficiently unorthodox as to qualify as POV" (bold added) and "your attempt to problematize the definition of "indigenous" is eccentric". The latter sentence would have been better expressed as with the strikethrough, but both were characterizing your effort, not you. I'm sorry if you took this the wrong way. This wasn't a personal attack but rather a characterization of your analysis. JK, I would like to believe that you honestly want to work together, but your previous blanket reverts of HH's very careful and judicious additions (I'm not even going to go into the other issues on the Native Hawaiian article) throw this into real question. Arjuna 03:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

As per my note on your talk page, Arjuna, I have started with HH's work as a baseline, and listed each individual fix I've made below where we can discuss our issues and concerns specific to those sections.

As per "unorthodox and eccentric", I think it would be just as rude of me to characterize your interpretation of the issues as "sufficiently misinformed and maladjusted to qualify as POV" (although frankly, I'm not sure what that means - everyone has a POV, no matter if they are unorthodox, eccentric, misinformed, or maladjusted). I think what you were trying to say is that my POV is a fringe POV, and therefore on the basis of that it should be discounted. One might also assert that the sovereignty movement is a fringe POV, and that the Apology Resolution they wrote is also a fringe POV, and that the Akaka Bill, which is based on that is therefore a fringe POV. But let's not go there - we can both accept that both sides have sufficient support, reason and rationale to hold their points of view. Trying to denigrate the basis of the other persons POV isn't very helpful, and I know you want to help.

So please, I've listed my fixes below, and would appreciate your help in addressing them section by section. I'll commit to addressing and explaining any changes I make in detail on this talk page, and I hope you and HeartlyHear do the same. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 04:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

JK, I wrote the comment below (Arjuna 04:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC) ) before I read this most recent comment from you. How what I said could any way be equated with using the words "misinformed and maladjusted" is beyond me. This seems like an overreaction. I stand by my comments about your POV pushing and hope there is still a way to move beyond it, but it may not be possible. It sounds like you have assimilated Foucault but from a rather different political orientation; while it may be to a certain extent true that "everyone has a POV", this is a red herring, since it is still possible to have an opinion but to fairly represent an perspective different from one's own. To extrapolate from this to a larger point, without this ability, democratic political discourse will fail. What I am saying, and perhaps HH would agree, is it is apparent that you do not always readily display this attitude. Arjuna 05:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

JK, thanks for your note on my talk page and for your cooperation. Let's work together. Adding sections to track the changes is helpful, but if I can also suggest that we slow down a bit -- I'm sure we're all busy people and are doing this for "fun" on the side. Given that fact, it's hard to keep up when so many changes are being made at once. As hopefully you've noted from my lack of getting back into the whole "alleged" thing, I hope you will agree there's no rush to try to solve all our disagreements at once... Finally, (I first put this on your talk page and am reposting here so it's part of the "official" record), I think it's also worth noting that both HH and I (I'm taking his statement on faith from what s/he said) are not even sure if we support the Akaka Bill or not. Speaking for myself at least, it's from this basis that I'm just seeking to ensure that the article represent the issue fairly and not pushing a POV from either side. Representing the fact that there are POVs is fine; my point is that I'd like to see an article free of what comes across to a dis-interested observer, which is what I am on this issue anyway, as non-editorializing. Which was how it came across before. Anyhow, I haven't looked at your changes yet and probably won't get a chance to until later. But thanks for your cooperation. Arjuna 04:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to slow down if you'd like -> I'm trying to keep my changes small so that each individual change can be looked at (rather than a mass revert or mass change). If you'd like to suggest we only work on one section a day, or some other rate of change you'd like to see, please let me know.

Insofar as a "dis-interested observer" viewpoint, I'm working towards that as well - I think our biggest disagreements though are on what we believe the "facts" are, and because of that it is often difficult to come to something that looks "dis-interested" to all parties. The best way to remain disinterested is for us to clearly cite statements to their source, and attribute interpretations to the person who expressed them. Let's see if we can move forward in that spirit, and I'm sure things will be improved. --JereKrischel 05:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Fix #1

Simplified the intro. Please respond with any issues with that edit here. Mahalo. --JereKrischel 03:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Fix #2

Actually discussed the proposed provisions with direct reference to the text of the bill. Probably needs a bit of give and take when discussing either support for, or opposition to specific whereas clauses in the bill, or interpretations of specific sections. --JereKrischel 03:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Fix #3

Adjusted support section...need URL references for claims of specific support of specific groups (getting their actual statements online would be nice, but magazine and news page citations would be fine).

We might want to think of avoiding arguments directly inline - arguing against something that wasn't brought up in the first place seems odd. Similarly, extensive quotes seem like a bad idea - we could quote the USCCR extensively right next to Bennett, and it would get messy. --JereKrischel 03:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

JK, there is consensus that we begin with the current version (i.e. after my revert) as the baseline from which to work on further changes. Thanks for your kokua. Arjuna 03:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I started work based on that baseline, please help me understand any objections you may have to the individual fixes I've been making. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 04:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Fix #4

As per Arjuna's request, we're working from the baseline presented. Fix #4 includes some reorganization of material. Specific issues with the reorganization can be discussed here. --JereKrischel 03:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Akaka's quotes from the NPR interview seems inappropriate - what context do you think is missing, Arjuna? Why do you think it is POV pushing to cite Akaka's own words, attributed to him directly? Do you think NPR made an inappropriate quote of him? --JereKrischel 20:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

According to Arjuna, Akaka's interview with NPR is "unflattering" and "unfair". I'm not quite sure how it is particularly unflattering - pro-independence folk will see it as very high minded, and anti-independence folk will see it as nefarious: Whether or not it is "flattering" seems to be based on the POV of the reader, which tend to indicate that the quote itself is neutral. --JereKrischel 20:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Now, whether or not it is flattering or unflattering, NPR seems to me to be a generally accepted reliable source, and so long as we properly attribute the statements, there should be no objection to including them. Perhaps you could simply add other statements from Akaka to balance the section in a way you see fit? --JereKrischel 20:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Fix #5

Moved citation of Honolulu Advertiser article to pro-akaka links - the Honolulu Advertiser board is staunchly pro-Akaka bill, and the article cited is not neutral. --JereKrischel 03:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Fix #6

Reorganized references section, removing ones not directly related to the Akaka Bill, and organizing those which were from Akaka's own website. Probably need to move these references to ref format, and link them to the text they refer to. --JereKrischel 04:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Fix #7

Moved a bunch of references up to the text in proper ref format. Please double check my work, there are a few references left that don't seem to fit anywhere in the text - we probably want to add text where applicable. --JereKrischel 04:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

POV Pushes in JK’s Latest Wholesale Revert, Etc.

The section, "Akaka's statements about the bill", which had been split and analyzed under both the "supporting" and "opposing" sections was re-inserted wholesale with its decidedly "opposing" tone. (That is why it was better placed under the “opposing” section, so that it at least does not purport to state as fact items that are opinion or POV-pushing.) The section excerpts an NPR interview re-printed in the HawaiiReporter:

AKAKA: It creates a government-to-government relationship with the United States.

KASTE: Democratic Senator Dan Akaka, himself a native, wants Congress to let Hawaiians re-establish their national identity. He says his bill would give them a kind of legal parity with tribal governments on the mainland, but he says this sovereignty could eventually go further, perhaps even leading to outright independence.

AKAKA: That could be. As far as what's going to happen at the other end, I'm leaving it up to my grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

In May of 2006, Senator Akaka began a short run of daily speeches on the issue, after the Commission on Civil Rights report recommended against his bill. Opponents of the Akaka bill have responded to his daily speeches, as well as to the arguments in favor made by other politicians. Regarding the latest version of his bill, S.310, Akaka's website states, "This language has been publicly available since September 2005 and has been widely distributed." However, opponents artue, S.147, which failed to get enough votes for cloture on June 8, 2006, did not include the revisions now present in S.310.

1. NPR Reporter Kaste’s statement doesn’t include the actual question to which Akaka responds, “That could be.” That implies that Akaka’s statement was directly to Kaste’s summary, and it is not. The exact question asked is missing.

2. The entire final paragraph is a POV push from the opposing sector. For instance, “Opponents have responded” to a) Akaka and b) others’ statements supporting the bill. It leaves it at that as though there had been no further discussion in support of the bill, giving no equal time to the supporting side. Omitting facts supporting one side while providing facts supporting the other is fallacious when looking at the big picture.

3. The final paragraph is also extraneous, because of course there have been statements for and against the bill; it therefore creates wordiness in the article.

4. “This language has been publicly available” is vague because it doesn’t state what specific portion of anything (presumably the bill), as it is an excerpt out of context from the Website.

5. The end result of the problem in #3 is that deliberately insults the supporting group by making it seem as though they wrote an incomplete statement on the Akaka Website. It therefore implies a falsehood.

6. “Opponents ar[g]ue...[it] did not include the revisions now present” is without citation and is another obvious POV push because it never clarifies the supporting statement (“language... publicly available”) and therefore doesn’t give it equal treatment within the text.

7. The original treatment of this information was less POV in that it provided arguments in both the “supporting” and “opposing” sections. That those sections are still in the article is good. That it is repeated as an entirely separate section presents several organizational problems. One problem is that it is redundant. And...

8. The last paragraph began with a tainted sentence that is slanted toward the opposing POV. “Short run of daily speeches,” besides adding being wordy, connotes an unfavorable view by using “short.” Juxtaposition of “short” and “daily speeches” (and that contrasted to “report recommended”) colors the supporting side as brief and weak. Here is an example of tone created by diction and word arrangement.

9. That the Commission “report recommended against his bill” is placed at the end of the sentence reveals more POV pushing. The end of the sentence is a place for emphasis. Ending on “against” is decidedly an opposing POV push.

10. Using “his” to describe the bill also demeans the support coming from other legislators and other groups.

Unfortunately, JK also chose to undo several hours of work and attempted to summarize the bill while omitting information about the bill. The language used in the summary appears to be “legislative” in layout, in omitting information or providing shallow summaries, it skews the summary. Will have to go into all the detail later...

Normally, in the world of publishing, editors work with authors to diplomatically suggest changes to be negotiated. However, this article (as with most Wiki articles), is not owned by any author because they are all collaborative texts. And in this case, where some contributors are highly politicized, where text is sometimes polemic, and where some contributors have dominated more than others, there is no true negotiation of text. To suggest changes to such parties often results in a long cyberspace debate (often with much repetition because one party refuses to budge, even amongst reminders to be “collaborative”) in a stagnant article that cannot move forward. At least this month, there has been more “fleshing out” by all parties of substance into the article as a result of ongoing changes. My initial revision did seem more on the “supporting” side simply because I worked from the top of the article and downward. I am not getting much to the “opposing” section because there are still so many changes and reverts in the upper sections to respond back to. On the other hand, of the sections one opposes, perhaps one should limit oneself to copyediting of grammatical and punctuation errors rather than have a war over semantics in an area you disagree with. I would suggest it would benefit the article if we stick to our respective "sides," avoiding adding any new sections that are POV-pushing, and work to keep the intro and description of the bill neutral. I will argue over JK's use of the word "exclusive" and "racial" as inappropriate, but leave it in the "opposing" sections, since that is where his stance is. I would hope that JK would offer the same respect to the "supporting" side and the "sovereignty" side. HeartlyHear 12:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Mahalo HH, could we place this information into the fix sections above? --JereKrischel 15:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Attempting compromises for your issues:

• 1) There was no question in the transcript which prompted Akaka's statement, "It creates a government-to-government relationship with the United States." We're simply reporting on NPR's transcript, and can't add information that wasn't provided;

• 2) Moved paragraph mentioned to the opposing section; There are numerous citations to support of the bill in the earlier section, so I don't see balance as an issue.

• 3) Could you provide a compromise suggestion to remove "wordliness"?

• 4) The context is that Akaka has been dishonest about the version of the bill he's put up for debate at various times - we could be more explicit about the dishonesty, but I tried to simply stick to the facts, not opinions or interpretations. The important fact we'd like to portray is that Akaka has argued that his bill has been fixed, but in fact did not apply his proposed changes to S.147 until it came around to S.310. It is up to the readers to decide if this is nefarious or not.;

• 5) I think we expect the supporting group to insult the opposing group, and vice versa - both sides believe they are telling the truth, so asking one side not to present its claims as strongly as the other seems POV pushing;

• 6) See #4

• 7) Agreed, we can move it to opposing section;

• 8) We can remove the word "short";

• 9) The USCCR commission did recommend against the bill - I'm not sure if you can sugarcoat that into anything less critical of the bill; Could you recommend a compromise?

• 10) We can change it to "the bill" instead of "his bill";

I've made the edits, and look forward to further discussion. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 15:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on how to proceed with this HeartlyHear, I believe that we cannot simply divide the baby in half - properly attributed statements, pro or con, are perfectly appropriate for the most part despite any insulting language or implications they may include for the other side. On the other hand, improperly attributed statements, or statements stated as neutral "fact" when they are disputed should be avoided throughout the article, no matter who is doing the editing.

I think this current round, of specific, concrete comments you've made, and specific, concrete compromises I've submitted, is the best way to proceed. I hope you agree, and continue to address your other concerns. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 16:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

POV tag status

Anyone? —Viriditas | Talk 10:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think JK did a very good job in cleaning the article up and largely removing the previous POV. I have a few lingering minor problems with some of the wording, but the big issues are much much improved. I've removed the POV tags for all but the very last section (Akaka statements) since I think these quotes are a bit selective. Mahalo nui to JK - my hat is off to him and to HeartlyHear for their hard work on this. Aloha. Arjuna 11:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Good job, everyone. —Viriditas | Talk 20:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks arjuna...I'd appreciate any suggestions on how to make the akaka's statements section more NPOV - I'm partial to keeping what we have quoted, but wouldn't mind seeing other quotes, or an altered presentation. I suppose all politicians have problems when faced with their own words at times, but I think that it is fairly important to make note of the things he has said, whether or not people of one stripe or another would find them either damaging or supportive to the bill as a whole. --JereKrischel 03:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the section entirely. It is very tricky to use primary sources -- in this case, quotes -- fairly in an encyclopedia article, since choosing what material to use inherently "paints a picture" and thus is easily manipulated to present an issue in either a favorable or unfavorable light. The previous version was subtle POV in one direction, and trying to find a balance (not to mention, "whose balance?") is not a productive use of efforts. It is better to leave the section out entirely. Arjuna 08:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the answer is to remove the quotes - so long as we're not characterizing the quotes as meaning something, one way or another, we're simply giving a neutral presentation and leaving it up to the reader to decide. Could you simply help find other quotes that you would imagine paint a more balanced picture?

I suppose I could find secondary sources that impugn Akaka's honesty by using his quotes against him, but I thought it might be more fair to allow his words to speak for themselves. I guess I leave it to you - if you'd like to keep direct quotes out, I'll find secondary sources that use those quotes to pillory Akaka (and we deal with simply finding other secondary sources that support him), or we put the direct quotes back in and we try to find other quotes by Akaka that help balance the picture out. --JereKrischel 21:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point, which is that the entire section is inherently POV and should stay gone. Arjuna 21:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that secondary sources which impugn Akaka's honesty and veracity by using his own quotes are not appropriate? I'm worried that by taking off the table any criticism of Akaka, based on his own words, we're doing a whitewash job - how would you propose to include material critical of Akaka's statements on the bill, in a neutral manner? Or do you think that that kind of material should be verboten? --JereKrischel 08:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article, not a political venue, so yes, totally verboten. Chasing after the ghost of "neutrality" on a contentious and very much "live" issue such as this is 1. a fool's errand and 2. certain to be original research simply by the fact that one is editing reality in some particular way that inherently paints a picture (whose picture?). So the entire endeavour crosses the line into political opinion/speech and is thus inappropriate here. If you want to create a website or blog with that material on it, and link to it in the "External Links" section, I've got no problem with that at all. Arjuna 08:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - although let me ask one more question so as to make sure we're on the same page - does this count also for pro-Akaka material, such as an exhaustive list of who supports the bill? I guess if we're going to try and keep any pro/con analysis and discussion to the External Links section, do you see anything in the current article, on the other side, that you would move there? I've run into this type of problem before, at Race and intelligence, where essentially a point-counter-point of references made the article a mess, but I'd appreciate some attention paid to making sure that both pro/con POVs aren't painting a certain picture.

Insofar as con-Akaka material, I wouldn't go so far as to cite either my own weblog, but I would cite other people's work, probably most notably Aloha 4 All. If you'd like to cite any GRIH articles I've written, I think it would be more appropriate for you to make those additions, or for someone else to make those additions. Mahalo again for your help! --JereKrischel 08:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move 29 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. I don't even see the argument that it's a BLP violation. We have only one person actually voting here? Nobody closed the BLPN discussion. It's even called the Akaka Bill in Daniel Akaka's article, with no sign of negativity. One of the Hawaiian newspaper references (from 2008) says, "Barack Obama says he would sign the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, better known as the Akaka Bill". EdJohnston (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Akaka Bill → Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2009 – Per discussion at BLPN (permalink), I am requesting this page be moved to its official title Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2009 and the current page title redirect there. Part of reasoning is that this is similar to Obamacare, which redirects to Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Like Obamacare, "Akaka Bill" is a politically loaded term as demonstrated by Google search results (e.g., stopakakabill.com, akakabill.org, and stoptheakakabill.com) as well as the use of caveats like "so-called" by some reliable sources (e.g., Washington Times and The Nation). Acknowledging that "Akaka Bill" is a common name, it is often paired with the official name when discussed by reliable sources, especially sources outside of Hawai'i local news (e.g., Fox News, International Business Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal). Some sources only use the official name (e.g., HuffPo, NYTimes, NYTimes again). Thus, while WP:COMMONNAME is germane, "Akaka Bill" (1) is not overwhelmingly or solely what its referred to as and (2) COMMONNAME itself appeals to neutrality. Also feel that WP:RNEUTRAL applies here. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment: you've provided a number of low-quality sources, particularly low-information news sources to support your move request. However, the preponderance of high-quality book and scholarly sources demonstrates that the common term "Akaka Bill" is preferred, particularly because the bill has the status of perennial legislation with no stable title. Further, the term "Akaka Bill" is used with the utmost respect and honor by our best sources. Your analogy with the obviously derisive term "Obamacare" is entirely misplaced and simply erroneous. I'm curious how you would respond to this counterargument. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 05:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you please provide some of the sources you mention? Do those sources solely use "Akaka Bill", or do they, like others examples I gave, give the the full title as well? I gave mainstream news sources which reflect common positions on the bill. I would not call them low-quality. It would appear from some of the example website I mentioned that this title is not used with the utmost respect and honor. Its lack of stability is something to consider with the title, but nothing a redirect cannot address as well. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like you've actually looked at high-quality, high-information sources; we can't make arguments based on random, Google search results that aren't evaluated for reliability, so your argument that this is a politically loaded term is not only unsupported but lacks reliable sources. Have you taken a moment to do research on the term on Google books, Google scholar, and in research database indexes? I can, of course, do your research for you, but it would be helpful if your move request was based on evidence from the best reliable sources on the subject. Citing the Washington Times, Fox News and random Google search results isn't helpful here. Start by looking at sources about the subject written by academics. How do they refer to this topic? And please, find one reliable source that points out a problem with the term. Again, your analogy that this is the same as the pejorative term "Obamacare" is just wrong. Look, this is really simple: cite the best source(s) you can find for your argument and then juxtapose your argument from the sources with Wikipedia naming conventions and best practices. Then, others will be able to determine if your move proposal has merit. I can sit here and show why we shouldn't move the article, but that defeats the evidentiary standard of your proposal. We're not supposed to be arguing why we shouldn't move it, you're supposed to be arguing why we should. So far, this proposal doesn't even meet that standard. Do the research, look at the topic a bit closer, then propose your argument again. Viriditas (talk) 09:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Not a random search and not low quality sources. But thank you for your opinion. Would still like to see your sources you mention. (PS - I see both terms used on Google Books quite a bit). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The move request may be moot at this point as the BLP noticeboard has consensus to move the article title based on the arguments that it is indeed a BLP violation. I believe Evergreen was attempting a good faith request here, but this is not how we handle BLP violations and consensus from that noticeboard. The bill is simply not tilted "Akaka Bill" and the name Akaka is indeed a reference to Daniel Akaka. Regardless of the reverence that some sources may use, others also claim the use of the name is meant to show that Akaka is of Chinese descent and question his Native Hawaiian roots etc. Either way, whether positive, negative or just neutral, the BLP violation is real and the use of the name inappropriate for Wikipedia.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The only others who commented on BLPN are Cullen328 and myself. And I'm not convinced this is a BLP violation. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that doesn't matter. You actually agreed with the conclusion. You cannot use another venue to begin a different discussion that is still ongoing and everyone so far agrees with the move. The fact of the matter is, Wikipedia uses common names unless they violate other policies/guidelines and or procedures. We do not name an article itself with a nickname using the real life last name of a living person. Yes, this is very similar to call the Affordable Care Act "Obamacare". But we should not be attempting to create multiple discussions at various noticeboards. Let that one close and if there is a reason to continue then we should start the new discussion then.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.