Talk:Akaka Bill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Hawaii Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaiʻi, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Hawaiʻi. Please participate by editing the article Akaka Bill, or visit the project page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a brief summary at comments to explain the ratings.)

It would be helpful if more details of the bill were included. Native Americans tribes generally have an area of land which they have sovereignty over. What part of Hawaii does the Akaka bill cover? All of it? From news reports I can't tell.

Aloha for all has some information about that here. --JereKrischel 00:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly encourage another look at Wikipedia's pillar two. This page clearly advocates a one-sided opinion: an anti-Akaka Bill opinion. An equal amount of research, information, and emphasis on all opinions is what every reader deserves and appreciates. For one, all of the external links (except for the link to the bill itself) are anti. The reason that I am posting is because a growing number of my professors are discrediting the virtues of Wikipedia due to overall biased, opinionated information like this. I think Wikipedia can be a great thing if we hold to the five pillars. Student9278 06:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)student9278

Contents 1 Repeated POV push 2 Akaka Bill Edits 3 Reverts 4 RE: Reverts 5 Updates 5.1 Fix #1 5.2 Fix #2 5.3 Fix #3 5.4 Fix #4 5.5 Fix #5 5.6 Fix #6 5.7 Fix #7 6 POV Pushes in JK’s Latest Wholesale Revert, Etc. 7 POV tag status

[edit] Repeated POV push

I find Jere Krischel's POV is decidedly against the Akaka Bill (and its federal recognition of Native Hawaiians], Native Hawaiian sovereignty, and the Hawaiian perspective of the history of Hawai`i. On the Webpage http://www.grassrootinstitute.org/board_staff2.shtml, he is listed as a board member of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii [sic], a group with a mission to lobby against the bill and to "educate" the public with its perspective (http://www.grassrootinstitute.org/Sunshine%20on%20the%20Akaka%20Bill.shtml). It is clear that his edits weren't neutral particularly in article sections concerning the Native Hawaiian POV. These articles need more balanced writing and editing (and watching). HeartlyHear 11:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate any help you can give in reaching NPOV. Asserting that there is some sort of racial POV that must be adhered to is an odd statement, but perhaps you could explain that in more detail. Insofar as GRIH, its mission is education - whether or not knowing the truth about the Akaka bill makes you for or against it is out of their purview. Perhaps we can address some of your issues one at a time? --JereKrischel 15:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I find myself in the rather odd position of agreeing with some (but by no means all) of JK's edits -- viz., text that does seem to be a little to POV in favor of the pro-Akaka bill perspective. I think the article should not advocate either way, and certainly I agree with HH that many of JK's language is quite POV and indeed insidious. It's quite telling that he is the one who asserts that HH is advocating a "racial" POV when HH said or implied no such thing (as he and I have discussed many times before, such a category as "ethnicity" that can be used with more validity). I also agree that GRIH seems to be a lobbying organization (clever use of the term "education" to describe that behavior though) and thus JK's perspective on this issue may be skewed. Aloha. Arjuna 21:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies if you have found my language POV or "insidious" - I'm sure we can work out some compromise. I took HH's statement, the Hawaiian perspective of the history of Hawai'i as racial - perhaps he meant it only as an indication of geography, but in that case, I'm just as representative of the Hawaiian perspective. Only he can clarify what he meant by that term. Anyway, any help in finding some way to find a neutral ground is appreciated. --JereKrischel 23:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas, kudos on finding a good NPOV compromise. Sounds right to me. Arjuna 04:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've gone over things once more on a few points I felt were particularly POV pushing - could we discuss their inclusion before inserting them back in? Some specific points:

• "parity" is weasel-wordy. The Akaka bill would not bring about a level playing field, since native Hawaiians would not be subject to any of the same requirements for tribal membership.

• "seeks to recognize Native Hawaiians as Native Hawaiians...does not create a Native Hawaiian government" seems right out of the pro-Akaka brochures. I'm not sure what that section was even trying to elaborate on.

• AFAIK, the "new 2007 version of the bill" is identical to the one introduced and failed last year. Someone please show me a specific textual difference if I'm mistaken.

Any comments would be helpful. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 16:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

First, allow me to reproduce some comments that JK posted on HeartlyHear's talk page. I'm simply doing this as this seems the appropriate place to discuss the concerns that JK raised and to make the discussion part of the article's record. JK wrote:

Mahalo, HeartlyHear, but I must admit I have some significant reservations about your recent edits. In specific:

• Your characterization of "indigenous, Native Hawaiians" seems either redundant, or POV pushing. The question as to whether or not Native Hawaiians can be considered as "indigenous" to Hawaii, given the fact that they are most likely part of a second wave of colonization to the islands, and actually displaced the first people who migrated there (the Marquesans), is an open one;

• Stating that the bill has anything to do with "parity" regarding Native American and Native Alaskan tribes is blatantly misleading - none of the required qualifications for tribal recognition are in the Akaka bill -> it is well beyond "parity";

• Talking about "health, housing and economic development", and implying that if these programs weren't race based they wouldn't help people in need is misleading;

• Asserting that somehow native Hawaiian citizens of the State of Hawaii do not currently enjoy self-determination and self-governance is blatantly false -> no native Hawaiians are disenfranchised on the basis of their race in the State of Hawaii, and enjoy the same rights of self-determination that any other citizens of the State of Hawaii and the United States have;

• The 2007 version of the bill is not different at all from the last version S.147 - asserting that it clarifies anything is false;

• Asserting that support of the Akaka Bill comes from those who want to "ensure that the native (especially at-risk) population continues to receive services" is complete propaganda - those who oppose the Akaka Bill also want to ensure that at-risk populations recieve services, simply not due to their racial makeup;

• "Many Republican congressional delegates" is awfully broad and inspecific. Be more precise if you'd lke to be;

• Inoyue's quote is probably acceptable, but the assertion that treating Native Hawaiians in a manner completely different than Native Americans are treated is somehow discriminatory is failing to address the issue those people with Native American and Native Alaskan, or other pre-United States ancestry in the Americas who do not have tribal affiliation or special rights based simply on their bloodline;

I appreciate the time you're spending, but if you could address some of the issues I've raised, I'd greatly appreciate it. --JereKrischel 07:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Arjuna here again. I don't have time to go over these point by point, and only have time now to go over his point #1. But again, I think many of JK's points reflect a tendentious understanding of the issues and ignore the consensus positions of scholarly work about Hawaii.

1. JK, can you cite a source indicating that the "original" Marquesan populations in Hawaii were "displaced" by a second Tahitian wave? The second wave hypothesis in itself is not necessarily in dispute (although there is no real scholarly consensus as to exactly how or by whom colonization took place), but the idea that the second wave extirpated, rather than absorbed, is at best, and unsupported statement. Certainly, suggesting that this is a "fact" is incorrect; certainly it is at odds with the patterns of immigration/migration throughout the Pacific. This makes the notion that the inhabitants of Hawaii that were here at the time of Cook's arrival were therefore NOT "indigenous" similarly spurious. In light of this, how HH's edits were "POV pushing" seems wholly without merit, and in fact a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

2. JK and I have battled many times before over the issue of whether the Akaka Bill is "race-based" (his view, reflecting, perhaps, own political opinions -- to which he is of course entitled to hold outside Wikipedia), or whether "ethnicity" is a more valid representation. "Ancestry-based" seemed to be a compromise wording that we both accepted, so I'm disappointed to see him resurrecting the term again.

I have to run, but look forward to continued discussion of these and the other points JK raised. In the meantime, I wish you both aloha. Arjuna 08:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding 1), you are correct, there is no scholarly consensus, which I think addresses the point I'm trying to make -> labeling Hawaiian colonists pre-1778 as "indigenous" seems like an attempt to label them as having superior rights in some manner. I suppose I see it in the same light as Americans who decry recent immigrants as not "real" Americans, even though their ancestors came here from somewhere else at one point in time. Insofar as references, see Herb Kane's information regarding the displaced Marquesan theory.

Regarding "race-based" versus "ancestry-based"...I believe in this case we're trying to make a statement regarding opposition, not a neutral statement as to what it actually does. In places where we describe the Akaka bill without attributing our description as a criticism, I think our compromise should hold, but in this case, I think it's a bit different. Does that make sense? --JereKrischel 08:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding differences between S.147 and S.310, I stand corrected, there are some textual differences, but I do still disagree with the characterization. Here you can see the specific differences. Nowhere in there do I find support for the following statements:

• Any clarification regarding secession or separating parts of Hawaii from the U.S.;
• Prohibition of casinos or other gaming in Hawaii (it simply says it cannot rely on "inherent authority" or "Federal Law" to justify doing so);
• Federal/state criminal and civil jurisdiction are subject to change as per the result of negotiations described in Section 8(b);

Some more interesting points that probably deserve mention are the elimination of explicit racial requirements for being a commissioner, the removal of the Governor of Hawaii's role in "Native Hawaiian Relations", and the insistence that this Native Hawaiian Governing entity be singular, and all other Native Hawaiian groups would not have any recognition at all (almost as if the Cherokee were able to establish themselves as the only legal Native American tribe). --JereKrischel 09:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of the HeartlyHear edits seemed to come directly off of Akaka's website [1]. I wouldn't be nearly as concerned if Akaka's statements on the bill were quoted directly, rather than simply being presented as factual. Although certainly some things are not disputed (who supports the bill, who co-sponsored it, etc), there are significant disputes as to the characterizations Akaka has made about his bill. For example, he states on his webpage, "The language satisfactorily addresses concerns expressed in July 2005 by the Bush Administration regarding the liability of the United States in land claims, the impact of the bill on military readiness, gaming, and civil and criminal jurisdiction in Hawaii." Asserting that any specific changes "satisfactorily addresses concerns" is a fairly large leap - if he could cite the Bush Administration stating that, that would be one thing, but instead he's simply making an unsupported assertion.

A particularly interesting quote from Akaka's web page is, Negotiations between the recognized Native Hawaiian entity, the United States, and the state of Hawaii will address issues such as criminal and civil jurisdiction, historical grievances, and jurisdiction and control of natural resources, lands, and assets. - this seems important enough to mention, and makes assertions that the Akaka bill will not alter any criminal and civil jurisdiction, or land base, or anything, seem misleading, since although the bill itself may not make it happen, it directly opens the door to those changes. Sort of like picking the lock on a store, leaving it open, and asserting that nothing you did had anything to do with the group of guys who drove up, walked through the door, and stole a bunch of stuff. --JereKrischel 09:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Bit confused about the flow of this Webpage and how things should be entered... I added comments using the + so they are below.

Regarding JereKrischel's comments/questions, based on scholarship I've read or reviewed, he does make unsupported, outdated, or disputed claims. Calling the Hawaiians (who were the first to arrive in the islands from at least 1200 AD--and documentation is forthcoming because it is definitely available) "colonists" and claiming they are not "indigenous" is quite surprising because it is a minority viewpoint (in academia and I would venture to say most of society worldwide) that some would even say is even racially biased. LOL! Certainly, older scholarship was written from an older perspective, and perhaps the viewpoint originates from older texts. A discussion to define "colonist" and "indigenous" is needed here (in the discussion area), perhaps. At least it will clarify what assumptions each of us are working from. I am not an anthropologist, but I do try to read as much as I can and to find the most up-to-date research. I think we owe a people that much before we try to write about them. I'm sure no Native Hawaiian would appreciate what seems an insinuation (or perhaps, subtle slight), in JereKrischel's comment, that they mindlessly "gave up the keys to the kingdom."

I will be providing more responses and research to address all of the comments, but need to log off now. As JereKrischel would appear to want to discuss many things, it will take some time to do them each, so please allow for ample time to do so. So I will sign off with this quote, which is not necessarily about politics, colonialism, or the indigenous, but does provide food for thought (in addressing the "indigenous" discussion, at least). J.B. Hare wrote, in the preface to Bronislaw Malinowski's "Baloma; the Spirits of the Dead in the Trobriand Islands" (see [2]):

[Malinowski] makes the point that no set of beliefs can be studied in isolation from the rest of society. Anthropology should not be the haphazard collection of random customs and artifacts, as it had been up to that point. Rather, we need to study cultures on their own terms in a systematic fashion.

If we read the latest information from the experts, we are better informed. HeartlyHear 14:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Mahalo for your comments HeartlyHear. A few responses - 1) Vinton Kirch, in On the Road of the Winds talks extensively about the multiple waves of colonization to the Hawaiian islands. To call the first Marquesan and Tahitian colonists to the Hawaiian islands "indigenous" seems quite surprising...perhaps after a few generations one could make the argument that they significantly changed and therefore adopted a new identity, but this argument could be made for the people who have ancestors from the 1800s in Hawaii. The ancient Hawaiians were voyagers, travelers and colonists of the Pacific - I'm unsure what kind of criteria you're using to assert that they are "indigenous", but european voyagers, travelers and colonists are not.

Insofar as "keys to the Kingdom", the Kingdom was never a racially exclusive one. From the very inception of the Kingdom, the unification of the islands by Kamehameha, John Young was his right hand man, who trained his troops with modern weapons making it possible for Kamehameha to do things like push men, women and children over the Nuuanu pali.

Anyway, I look forward to addressing issues one at a time, and appreciate your patience. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 16:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and to answer your question of "colonist" and "indigenous" - I'm very interested in your definitions, because I believe what you call the "common understanding" is really a proxy for "white people are colonists, everyone else is indigenous". I believe it is a left-over from the perspective of european explorers who saw themselves as truly human, and the people they met as "native". It is ironic that this term of disparagement is now a matter of pride, yet used in the same spirit of separation originally intended.

My personal definition is that we are all "indigenous" to the earth, and barring a single spot in Africa where the first tribe of modern humans evolved, we are all "colonists". I'm very interested in what definition you use, and if you can evenly apply it to all situations. --JereKrischel 16:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, "The draft Universal Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples prepared by the DWIG does not provide a specific definition of indigenous peoples or populations. According to the Chairperson, Ms. Erica Irene Daes, Rapporteur of the Working Group, this was because "historically, indigenous peoples have suffered, from definitions imposed by others" (E/CN.4/Stib.2/AC.4/1995/3, page 3)." --JereKrischel 16:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, JK, please don't reorganize and insert paragraph breaks into other people's comments. I understand you are trying to rebut specific points, but this makes it harder, not easier, to follow. Second, I'm becoming alarmed at your attitude towards this article. HH spent a lot of time (as did you) in copy editing the article and has been working in good faith to try to come up with constructive ways to find common ground. Your blanket reverts do not seem to be in good faith, and indeed, you seem to feel as though you "own" the article. You do not. Neither does HH, nor I, but again, your blanket reverts are apparent bad faith. I am going to revert to HH's version, as he already incorporated much of your previous edits. From there, let's take that as a baseline and go over your objections point by point. I'm also adding tags to the article to make it clear that the neutrality of the article is disputed, and that it documents a current event. As for the substance of your remarks here, my reaction is that your interpretation of the issues are sufficiently unorthodox as to qualify as POV, and this is unfortunately reflected in the previous versions of the article. Your attempt to problematize the definition of "indigenous" is eccentric and unsuccesful. Mahalo. Arjuna 20:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, where did I insert a paragraph break? I've added some indentation for people's comments as a courtesy, but haven't broken directly into anyone's comments. Please correct me if I've missed something.

Insofar as moving forward, I respectfully ask that you revert your revert, and we start from the original baseline rather than HeartlyHear's mass edit. I've gone over point by point my objections, and haven't gotten any sort of discussion regarding those specifics. I'm more than happy to help, but doing a massive POV pushing change and expecting us to move from that baseline forward is inconsiderate, even if well intentioned. Moving alone quickly is not going to work as well as moving together slowly.

Lastly, as I respect your right to your POV, please show the same consideration to mine. Characterizing me as unorthodox or eccentric is bordering on a personal attack I know you don't really intend, so please, discuss the issue rather than simply describing my opinions in a colorful manner. --JereKrischel 00:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi JK. This is getting confusing in terms of what discussion thread started when and where it appears. Since a lot of the different sections on this talk page actually discuss very similar or related things, I propose we continue it in HH's new section "Updates" just to keep track of things more easily. Cheers, Arjuna 02:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Akaka Bill Edits

All right then, I spent about 5 hours trying to balance out the article, adding links, additing material for both sides. I hope that it works more to everyone's liking! I will need to learn how to use endnotes so it's cleaner from a layout perspective.

I'm not sure whether I'm for or against the bill, but I do feel it was originally skewed toward the opponents' perspective, and I am slightly more for the bill than agains. I had started in with the editing from the top, so I only got halfway through the first few edits, that is, up through the supporters' section. But I think it would be good to hear from both sides to add to the debate.

From an English professor's and professional writer and editor's perspective, I feel that is more of an article now than bullet points. Stating the bill's objectives first made sense, before listing proponents and opponents, then going into their ongoing debate.

Must run, but hope everyone has a nice day! Ta ta! HeartlyHear 17:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Mahalo, HeartlyHear, but I must admit I have some significant reservations about your recent edits. In specific:

• Your characterization of "indigenous, Native Hawaiians" seems either redundant, or POV pushing. The question as to whether or not Native Hawaiians can be considered as "indigenous" to Hawaii, given the fact that they are most likely part of a second wave of colonization to the islands, and actually displaced the first people who migrated there (the Marquesans), is an open one;

• Stating that the bill has anything to do with "parity" regarding Native American and Native Alaskan tribes is blatantly misleading - none of the required qualifications for tribal recognition are in the Akaka bill -> it is well beyond "parity";

• Talking about "health, housing and economic development", and implying that if these programs weren't race based they wouldn't help people in need is misleading;

• Asserting that somehow native Hawaiian citizens of the State of Hawaii do not currently enjoy self-determination and self-governance is blatantly false -> no native Hawaiians are disenfranchised on the basis of their race in the State of Hawaii, and enjoy the same rights of self-determination that any other citizens of the State of Hawaii and the United States have;

• The 2007 version of the bill is not different at all from the last version S.147 - asserting that it clarifies anything is false;

• Asserting that support of the Akaka Bill comes from those who want to "ensure that the native (especially at-risk) population continues to receive services" is complete propaganda - those who oppose the Akaka Bill also want to ensure that at-risk populations recieve services, simply not due to their racial makeup;

• "Many Republican congressional delegates" is awfully broad and inspecific. Be more precise if you'd lke to be;

• Inoyue's quote is probably acceptable, but the assertion that treating Native Hawaiians in a manner completely different than Native Americans are treated is somehow discriminatory is failing to address the issue those people with Native American and Native Alaskan, or other pre-United States ancestry in the Americas who do not have tribal affiliation or special rights based simply on their bloodline;

I appreciate the time you're spending, but if you could address some of the issues I've raised, I'd greatly appreciate it. --JereKrischel 07:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts

Aloha HeartlyHear. I put a comment on JK's page stating that I find his reversions highly problematic, particularly the fact that they are blanket reverts. Sorry, JK, but this approach was not at all collaborative in spirit and frankly, disrespectful. In short, with all respect to JK, I find his edits on this but the other Hawaii-related articles to be consistently unfair, unobjective, and pushing a singularly tendentious POV. HH, you will be able to see from the history of many of these pages that he and I have been in "edit wars" over these and similar issues, but I'm taking a breather from all that as I think it was getting under both of our skins, and going nowhere. I respect JK as an intelligent person though I strongly disagree with (what I, and perhaps you would agree are) his ideologically-based POV pushing. Anyhow, long story short, I thought your edits --for the large part -- were perfectly fair and appropriate. Another edit war is not very constructive, but at the same time I am asking for your help in addressing some of JK's concerns. It is quite possible that there is a permanent disconnect here, and in that case we may have to take another approach, which could be either to split the analyses/interpretations (since they may be irreconcilable) into separate sections, or to seek external informal mediation. As for JK's specific concerns, the appropriate place to address those is on the article's talk page. Mahalo. Arjuna 08:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Fix #1

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)