Talk:Grassroot Institute of Hawaii

{{Connected contributor|Masonica16|edited-here=yes|declared=yes} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masonica16 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources for funding section
you support your reversion by saying "linking directly to the 990 isn't SOP- find a good reliable secondary source that discusses it. Neither is bunching several groups and calling them all "Charles Koch related" without a secondary source. Sourcewatch is also not a reliable, unbiased source."

Use of 990s as a source
Let's start with "linking directly to the 990 isn't SOP." You said this in response to a restoration I supported with a quote from wp:primary (which had cited in support of an earlier reversion), to wit: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" (emphasis added). I don't find anything in wp:Primary about "SOP" being an exception to this statement. Is the exception found elsewhere? If there is such an exception then I request that you provide some evidence to support your conclusion that direct links to 990s 'are not SOP. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Tchouppy is correct. It's a WP:WEIGHT issue, for one. 990s say lots of things--they are typically dozens of pages long. Picking one or two portions of a 990 to include in an article comes across as WP:CHERRYPICKING. Who decides what is important enough to include here? It's WP:UNDUE unless some other secondary source has picked up on something in particular, thus making it noteworthy enough for inclusion here. Marquardtika (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll be happy to explore all of these new and different rationales one at a time. To avoid confusion, for the moment let's just focus on the "SOP" rationale. Can you provide (a) a cite for the SOP rule and (b) evidence of the SOP regarding 990 form linking that support a reversion on that basis (trumping the wp:primary text)?


 * Here's a good thread Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 185 on why 990s and the like aren't generally good sources. Marquardtika (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you. The final post in that discussion says (bold added) "If there is information that undeniably HAS to be in the article, and it can be sourced to the federal filing, that is fine." Earlier a poster says (bold added) "The question was not about using financial information to establish notability. It was about whether it can be used in an article, and we all seem to be agreeing that it can." This seems in line with the may be used text in wp:primary, not a limitation on it. What am I missing? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * You took three separate self-filed organizational 990s from 2006, 2010, and 2014 to list three funders. Are these major funders? Current funders? Three funders out of how many total funders? There's no context. Unless we have a secondary source discussing these particular donations, it's pretty random to include it (surely there are many other 990s we could include here too, so why these three?). So no, it's not information that "undeniably HAS to be in the article." The onus is on you to make an argument for why this information should be included. Marquardtika (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that you agree that linking directly to 990s is acceptable under certain conditions. Do I have that right? If so then I'll be happy to move on to a discussion of WP:WEIGHT, WP:CHERRYPICKING, WP:UNDUE, and WP:ONUS. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it's appropriate to link to 990s in limited conditions, per WP:ABOUTSELF, such as listing organization revenue and expenses and board members. I don't think 990s are ever a sufficient source for reporting on donors. Marquardtika (talk) 03:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Do you have any reason for your belief that 990s are never a sufficient source for reporting on donors other than WP:WEIGHT, WP:CHERRYPICKING, WP:UNDUE, or WP:ONUS?


 * Other than the four reasons I gave you? You're the one who wants to add content. Two editors have disagreed with your edits. You should explain why you think this content should be in the article . Marquardtika (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I thought we were talking about the use of 990s as sources for the content. Do you want to take a break from that now and start a discussion about whether the content itself is significant? If not then yes, I am asking for any reasons other than the four you have given so far to support your belief that 990s are never a sufficient source for reporting on donors. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Prerequisite for adding a "Funding" section
Can 990s ever be used? yes. Should they be used to certify who is or is not a donor to an organization for purposes of wikipedia? Probably not. It is not newsworthy, wikipedia level information unless a secondary sources has discussed the information. Three random donors of an organization cherrypicked from those organizations' 990s is not newsworthy information appropriate for a wikipedia article. There is no rationale for adding a section on funding for an organization unless reliable sources have been reporting on that organization's funding. If it has not been deemed newsworthy by an actual, reliable news source, then it's not wikipedia appropriate. Tchouppy (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * You raise a number of issues. It seems to me that the most significant is the criteria for adding a Funding section at all. I'll respond to that when I have more time.

Proposed changes
Information to be added or removed: The "Official website" link in the "External Links" section should link to grassrootinstitute.org. Footnote 5 should link to grassrootinstitute.org/about. Footnote 7 should link to grassrootinstitute.org/jones-act. Also footnotes 8, 10 and 14 are dead links and should be removed, as there are no live versions of those links.

Explanation of issue: Three links incorrectly point to the domain new.grassrootinstitute.org, which is dead.

References supporting change: grassrootinstitute.org is the current live domain of the website.

I have a conflict of interest since I work at the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. Kentj1 (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Good on you for resisting the urge to make these changes yourself. The first and last change seem to me to be non-substantive - just cleaning up references. And, since I don't presently have the time to make these changes, I authorize you to make them on my behalf. The middle three changes will require more thought. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed change to Hawaiian sovereignty section
Information to be added or removed: "state-funded" should be inserted before the word "race-based" in the following sentence: "The lawsuit, filed in 2015, seeks to block race-based elections in Hawaii."

Explanation of issue: The lawsuit sought to block state-funded race-based elections, and did not pertain to privately-funded race-based elections, which the institute has no opinion on.

References supporting change: - https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/31104257/nai-aupuni-kicks-off-amid-heated-talks/ - https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-racial-spoils-system-invents-a-tribe-for-native-hawaiians-1450481177 - Pages 5A and 6A https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/15A551-Akina-Appendix.pdf - Page 18 https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Akina-Application.pdf

I have a conflict of interest. --Kentj1 (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 03:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed edits to Jones Act section
Information to be added or removed: The following sentence should be deleted: "It does not condone a full repeal of the Jones Act."

Explanation of issue: The Grassroot Institute of Hawaii is not necessarily opposed to a full repeal of the Jones Act.

References supporting change: - https://www.cato.org/publications/cato-online-forum/updating-jones-act-21st-century-why-we-should-stop-calling-repeal - https://www.civilbeat.org/2013/06/19330-making-waves-kelii-akina-and-the-grassroot-institute-of-hawaii/ - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7sb9lACjGc&feature=youtu.be&t=805

Islehc (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I reviewed said sources and they seem to support the notion that the Institute is in support of a full repeal, albeit not in a single giant leap. Maybe a different wording to accommodate for this stance? Any ideas? Nearlyevil665 (talk) 07:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I took a look at the first two sources above and they do not explicitly state that Grassroot Institute of Hawaii is against a full repeal of the Jones Act. As this is ambiguous, and there is no citation to verify this claim in the article, I have removed the sentence. It can be added back in, perhaps with different wording, if other sources are presented that verify GIH's stance on the Jones Act. I am also closing this ticket. Z1720 (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed changes
Information to be added or removed: Remove Section: Education[edit source] Remove text: The Grassroot Institute supports school choice.[citation needed]

Explanation of issue: The Grassroot Institute hasn’t commented about this issue in over four years. It is not a key issue that gives the reader a good idea of what issues the Institute focuses on.

References supporting change: Note the last time school choice was mentioned was in 2017 according to the "Education" category on its website: https://www.grassrootinstitute.org/category/issues/education/page/2/ Note the dates of the content in these search results: https://www.grassrootinstitute.org/?s=school+choice

Information to be added or removed: New section headline: Public pension debt Text for that section: As of 2019, Hawaii’s unfunded public pension liabilities total $14 billion. The Grassroot Institute supports offering new pension plans that prevent pension spiking and cap benefits at reasonable levels.

Explanation of issue: This is one of the key issues the Institute publishes research and commentary on.

References supporting change: Note "Pension Reform" is listed as one of the five key issues on the site's menu at www.grassrootinstitute.org The Institute has hosted a few events on the issue: https://www.grassrootinstitute.org/2020/05/could-hawaii-go-bankrupt/ Recent research published by the Institute, noting that its heavily focused on this issue: https://www.grassrootinstitute.org/2021/01/delaying-eutf-payments-will-add-8-billion-to-hawaii-taxpayer-debt/ Institute's media release on its report about the issue: https://www.grassrootinstitute.org/2018/08/report-how-to-resolve-hawaiis-public-pension-debt-crisis/
 * I will remove the Education section since it is unsupported. We need more reliable sources in order to include the Prension Reform information. I will look into that later. Tchouppy (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Not sure if you mean you need more sources to include the specific information or to include a section about pension reform. If the latter, here are some sources for your consideration. I've included these because they establish that the Institute is quoted by media as an authoritative source on the matter and has been for several years: •• Orange County Register publishing an Institute op-ed in Oct. 2010: https://www.ocregister.com/2010/10/04/hawaii-taxpayers-on-the-hook-for-9-billion-for-public-employee-unfunded-benefits/ •• Hawaii News Now covering news release from the Institute in Dec. 2015: https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/30380766/exclusive-dead-get-500k-pension-benefits/ •• Pacific Business News, Dec. 2015: https://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/news/2015/12/23/unfunded-liabilities-for-hawaiis-state-pension.html •• Institute hosts event with Thom Williams, executive director of the Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii (org that manages the state pension funds), in Oct. 2017: https://www.grassrootinstitute.org/2017/11/ers-not-out-of-woods-yet/ •• Institute testifies to Kauai County Council about unfunded pension liabilities; covered Sept. 2018 by Kauai's The Garden Island: https://www.thegardenisland.com/2018/09/27/hawaii-news/pension-problems/ Masonica16 (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed changes: Introductory paragraph
Information to be added or removed: Replace "who continues to serve on its board of directors" in the introduction section with "who served on its board of directors until his passing on Nov. 28, 2020. "

Explanation of issue: Richard Rowland passed away on Nov. 28, 2020.

References supporting change: https://www.grassrootinstitute.org/rowland/


 * I removed the language regarding serving on the board. Given that it is now in the past sense, it doesn't really rise to the level of wikipedia newsworthy. My condolences on the loss of Mr. Rowland.Tchouppy (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Change title of Wikipedia article
Information to be added or removed: Change title of article to Grassroot Institute of Hawaii

Explanation of issue: In addition to being the proper name, there are numerous organizations that use the Grassroot Institute label for short, or a similar variation of it (Grassroots Institute) such as: https://www.grassrootsinstitute.org/ http://grassrootsinstitute.net/ http://www.grassroots-institute.org/

References supporting change: Official name according to website: www.grassrootinstitute.org/about Legal name (though "inc" isn't necessary): https://pdf.guidestar.org/PDF_Images/2018/990/354/2018-990354937-17180013-9.pdf

Add 'Taxes' section
Information to be added or removed: Add section "Taxes"

The Grassroot Institute generally opposes tax increases and new taxes. It has opposed proposed increases to taxes including capital gains, income, transient accommodations, liquor, car-sharing, and more.

Explanation of issue: Major issue the Institute focuses on.

References supporting change: https://www.grassrootinstitute.org/2021/02/testimony-x-7-relating-to-taxes/ https://www.grassrootinstitute.org/2018/10/hawaiis-high-court-strikes-down-tax-proposal/ https://www.grassrootinstitute.org/2021/02/testimony-on-tax-related-bills-hb771-hb871-sb155-and-hb1388/ Masonica16 (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The article mentions clearly the topic of taxes. If you have any specific content in mind, please provide it here, and an editor will review it. Ferkjl (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)