Talk:Mike Honda

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

Please add this part from yahoo news, regarding comfort women[edit]

Here is some additional information, please add it to the article:

"Historians say at least 200,000 young women, mostly from Korea but also from China, Indonesia, the Philippines and Taiwan, were forced to serve as sex slaves in Japanese army brothels.

In 1993, the Japanese government issued a statement voicing "sincere apologies and remorse" and acknowledging that Japan's imperial army was involved "directly or indirectly" in sexual slavery.

A left-leaning government in 1995 set up a fund to compensate former comfort women. But it uses money collected by private donations, leading many victims to shun it. " http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070219/pl_afp/japanuspoliticswwii;_ylt=AixoXFjWs7O4pC8N1d2CxugBxg8F

-intranetusa

Cars?[edit]

Despite his last name, which he shares with the famous motor company, his primary car is a Toyota Prius, but also owns a Honda Odyssey minivan. Does anyone know the accuracy of these hilarious statements? VarunRajendran 04:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a citation, however could not find anything about Odyssey minivan. Merumerume 15:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comfort Women[edit]

The final main section, comfort women (sic), is rather choppy and unclear at the moment. I would change it, to smooth out the English, but i'm not entirely sure what it is trying to say at certain points; also, i don't have the original quotes to refer to (which i think must be misquoted, unless Congressman Honda speaks poorly). Can someone with knowledge clean this up a bit? Cheers, Lindsay 22:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! I just added an NPOV tag to this section. Not only is the section unclear and written in poor English grammatical style, it also appears to contain unsubstantiated assertions about the validity of his claim and "Korean" claim. --InformationalAnarchist 15:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should minimize the references to Korean newspaper articles that the Japanese editors keep pushing. The Japanese editors are not fluent in Korean OR English and their sentences are horribly mistranslated. There should be no need to resort to obscure foreign language sources at all, as there are plenty of articles about Honda in reputable English newspapers. Even the quote and foreign language citation that I kept from the old version should really be replaced with a better English source. ThreesCompany 15:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For those interested:

This should provide enough solid source material for one paragraph here. ThreesCompany 17:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since it receives by Following URL, please give me an argument in Japanese well.

LikeCoffee 01:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protected[edit]

I have protected this page due to edit warring. Please see the notice below about making excessive reverts:

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period; violators may be blocked from editing Wikipedia for 24 hours. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes here on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links (From Japan)[edit]

It is a counterargument link from Japan. Please do not erase. LikeCoffee 00:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those links concern Comfort Women and there are simply too many here, creating undue weight on this point of view. If you want to enlighten the world about Comfort Women, take it to that article's talkpage. This article is about Mike Honda, not Comfort Women and those links should not dominate the external links section. oncamera(t) 00:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Japanese link is a thing for a counterargument of comfort women. The man in the world has misunderstanding about comfort women's actual condition. Why doesn't the link for dispelling misunderstanding arrange? It is not good to hide what has bad convenience. LikeCoffee 00:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are too many links. Why should there be a "counter-point" to the issue of Comfort Women that adheres to your point-of view? Take it to the Comfort Women article. oncamera(t) 00:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
mike honda tends to be danced to China, tends to take up a comfort-women problem, and tends to look down upon Japan. Estrangement of Japan and the U.S. is aimed at. Those things became a problem very much in Japan. Since it is dotted with the link of the opinion of Japan, it is in the situation which cannot be refuted as much links not being shown. Please understand. LikeCoffee 00:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His biography must adhere to the guidelines and policies. If you, or a number of editors in Japan, do not agree with what he does, that doesn't mean you place as many external links as you can on his article. Creating undue weight of an issue to your POV is unacceptable. oncamera(t) 00:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not erase until an argument finishes. LikeCoffee 01:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What argument besides your POV? If you have sources, write it into the article and cite it instead of adding external links. oncamera(t) 01:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Present Whatever Comfort Women may write in, it will be returned. A report cannot be written actually. Since External links is not erased POV is added. LikeCoffee 01:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I'm not sure what you mean. But this article is about Mike Honda. This article is not about Comfort Women. oncamera(t) 01:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
mike honda It is used for China and the comfort-women problem is taken up. Comfort Women Would you make it write to a section? Although it is glad if it is possible, it will be immediately erased by many editors. We should just do what. LikeCoffee 01:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All It is a report about mike honda. LikeCoffee 01:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The section about Comfort Women already mentions how he received donation money from Anti-Japanese groups. Is there a newspaper article in English I could read to understand this about China? oncamera(t) 01:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not written how donation money was still received from the anti-Japan organization. It will be erased if it writes. Would you write? LikeCoffee 01:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I need a reliable source for how much money. oncamera(t) 01:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This organization is good at fabrication half a day, in order to look down upon Japan. It is scribbling off without reliable sauce just as it likes. Sankei Shimbun is the news source whose reliance is most possible in Japan in a Japanese newspaper publishing company. Sankei Shimbun reaches. Since it is fully reliable, please refer to the report of IZA. Though regrettable, Japan has few Anglicized reliable newspaper articles. LikeCoffee 01:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you post a link in Japanese from a reliable Japanese newspaper (read: ja:Wikipedia:Attribution)? Is it this article [1]? Instruct me what to look for, and I will add it to the article, if possible. oncamera(t) 01:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the external link which you erased. http://www.iza.ne.jp/news/newsarticle/natnews/topics/43325/ LikeCoffee 01:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How much was it he recieved? $110,000? And was the name of the anti-Japanese group? oncamera(t) 01:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yes LikeCoffee 02:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please also refer to this report. http://www.sankei.co.jp/kokusai/usa/070323/usa070323006.htm LikeCoffee 02:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Well, I made an edit adding in the donation amount. Can you explain to me this article? Translate the important part of it, please. oncamera(t) 02:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Just this is enough. A problem is anxious about whether it is erased by the writer of anti-Japan. LikeCoffee 02:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has a source, so how can they erase it? Anyway, I apologize for not understanding at first. oncamera(t) 02:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since there are many people who rewrite without a basis or delete, I am troubled. I am glad to understand and get just here. It is wishing that at least one person of the direction which understands a position of Japan increases. LikeCoffee 02:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticized for getting money?[edit]

If we start every single criticism that comes from out-side the US on American politicians, we won't have enough server space on the wiki. Receiving money from an interest group is a common part of the American politics (hey people, it's called lobbying!), and I don't think that deserved to be mentioned how he collected some petty $100,000 from some group (considering the amount of political contriubtions, 100K is nothing)Merumerume 15:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mike honda is attacking by aiming at estrangement of Japan and the U.S. Also in order to show the basis, it is very important that it is shown how much it is given by Chinese people's anti-day group. Please return the erased portion. LikeCoffee 23:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, LikeCoffee, Merumerume has a point. I mean, Hillary Rodham Clinton stated she raised $26 million for her Presidential campaign in the first quarter [2], and had spent $36 million for her 2006 Senate re-election. Where does all that money come from? Lobbying is common in American politics. oncamera(t) 00:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a political fund of mike honda that I want to claim. It is having obtained many from Chinese people for one third, and having schemed for estrangement of Japan and the U.S. The size of money is not related. Why, a part of China policy repeats the problem solved at ancient times, and will attack Japan for 60 years or more. The thing I want those who refer to make honda to know. LikeCoffee 00:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether he obtained his money from Chinese-Americans or not. Those Chinese-Americans are exercising their First Amendment rights by supporting a politician who would serve their best interest. Merumerume 03:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Truth is written and it is [ why ] bad? Something Is it inconvenient to mike honda? LikeCoffee 00:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You Doesn't it allow adding that it is inconvenient to mike honda? LikeCoffee 00:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contribution of a presidential election It is wrong to compare the contribution of mike honda. LikeCoffee 00:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If a counterargument cannot be brought forth, please return the portion erased with responsibility. LikeCoffee 01:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the counterargument that is needed. Lobbying is part of our political culture and we can't put every single criticism that comes from those who are not involved.Merumerume 03:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


It's not something "inconvenient." Japanese-Japanese people (I just repeated twice to separate myself, Japanese-American, from people from Japan) do not get American political system. Lobbying is legal in the United States, and I still don't see why it deserved to be mentioned. If you want to defeat his agenda, support and give money to the opposing candidate. Oh sorry, I don't think Japanese people will get this idea since they have only one "functioning" party, LDP. Merumerume 03:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not change the subject. It is not speaking about lobbying. Though activity of make honda is a result of lobbying, it is very important to write to advance estrangement of Japan and the U.S. by Chinese lobbying here. LikeCoffee 03:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's not really important per Merumerume arguements. Do other Representatives have such things written on their pages, since this just seems like a case of Chinese-Americans lobbying to their preferred candidate (which is not illegal)? Or is this just an attempt to somehow "discredit" Honda's stance on Comfort Women? oncamera(t) 04:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not changing the subject. "it is very important to write to advance estrangement of Japan and the U.S. by Chinese lobbying here." -> why? If it is a result of lobbying, it's perfectly fine because that's how our government is made up and is meant to be. All you are trying to do is to discredit a congressman because he does not follow your political agenda. If it's illegal, sure it should be criticized. However, as I have repeated tons of times, lobbying is legal in this country, and heck, this country is ran by interest groups. Again, we shouldn't have 'criticisms' based on the source of his funds. It is based on a complete ignorance of American politics. Merumerume 04:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Act of mike honda It is the act which damages all the 120 million Japanese national people and past. Do you think that such a thing is allowed? Japanese people The act of mike honda has led to the big protest as what cannot be allowed. LikeCoffee 07:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is allowed. You are not getting how political contribution system works and the fundamentals of our democracy. Of course people can support a candidate who would bash the opposing party(whatever that is). It is their exercise of First Amendment rights. Our congress has always criticized other countries and will be doing it. If you disagree with that congressmen, you support the opposing candidate and try to kick him out from the office. That's also your First Amendment right. That's how our political system works. I mean, our congress have been bashing arabic nations for decades and have received millions of dollars from Jewish advocates. Do we list every single one of them? No. Unless you have a further vaild point, I will remove that line since it is based on ignorance of (and so is Sankei's article) this nations political system.Merumerume 20:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we replace that Comfort Women section with basically what's here, which just mentions what the resolution is about, and wikilink Comfort Women so readers can go there for more info? That seems a way to avoid one country's POV over another, or something... and maybe keep the last sentence from this article that quotes Honda. oncamera(t) 20:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no objectionMerumerume 20:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, section was "re-written." oncamera(t) 20:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the report of Sankei erased? I do not agree yet? LikeCoffee 01:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page as I changed it is NPOV. The other version was not. oncamera(t) 02:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why was the report of Sankei erased? I do not agree yet? LikeCoffee 03:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doesn't matter if you agree, I suppose, since I already answered this question. oncamera(t) 04:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He was criticized by Japanese because he collected a large amount of political donation money from anti-Japanese groups of approximately $110,000 from a total amount of about $370,000,[1]

It is the text I want you to leave. LikeCoffee 06:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is NPOV. , 2. It doesn't belong here as he cannot be criticized for receiving money since it is totally legal in the United States. See Lobbying in the United States And note that politicians received $728,397,857 for idelogical or single issues such as this one. Even if you divide up that $728,397,857 to number of people in house and senate, $350,000 is significantly small and it does not constitute as collecting a large sum Merumerume 15:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Stuff I put about money from Chinese activists got erased, and I don't understand why. I don't think it's a matter of right or wrong. It was just a piece of information. There is a fact that Mike Honda gets a large portion of money from Chinese, and a fact that he attacks Japan for the issue on comfort women. Why do we not mention about the fact that Mike gets political donations from Chinese? Again, I am not criticizing Mike for receiving the donations. I simply want to provide information so that people have a little clue why he is attacking Japan; the info is crucial.

References

  1. ^ 古森, 義久 (2007-03-15). "「慰安婦」追及のホンダ議員　中国系の献金突出, Political Donation to Mike Honda Who Pursues Comfort Women Is Mainly from Chinese". The Sankei Shimbun (in Japanese). Retrieved 2007-03-30. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Honda Maintains a Flickr Page[edit]

I just wanted to note for everyone working on this article that Rep. Honda maintains a page on flickr, with over a hundred photos, most of which (everything after April 10th) are acceptably licensed for Wikipedia. I've uploaded the photos I think are relevant to Commons, and put them in the article. If anyone sees anything interesting, the best place to upload a new photo would be at this page on Commons. In FlickrMail with the congressman's office, someone mentioned that there's some pictures of him as a high school science teacher coming up soon as well. --YbborTalk 20:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish-language ad[edit]

I have reverted the reversion of my addition of reference to Congressman Honda's Spanish-language ad, which reflects no POV whatsoever. It factually states that he cut a TV spot (reference included) for a Federally-indicted gubernatorial candidate who goes to trial after the Nov. 2008 election. This is as much a neutral fgact as the reference to the disposition of the donations received fro Norman Hsu and other facts included in the article. Please don't hide a neutral, relevant, sourced fact.Pr4ever (talk) 10:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new edit incorporates additional sourcing and language suggested by two editors. See discussion at User talk:Jpgordon - Pr4ever (talk) 05:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Health Care Reform[edit]

Rather than making a change to the article which maybe seen by others as POV pushing, which I try not to do although I admit like anyone else I have my own POV, should there be a mention of his stance on Health care reform in the United States as per the letter he wrote in response to a bill sponsored by Max Baucus that can be found here? Mike Honda (22 September 2009). "Baucus Should Be More Inclusive With Health Care Plan". Roll Call. Retrieved 28 September 2009. In the article he states support for inclusion of illegal immigrants, which he terms as undocumented immigrants, in any health care reform plan passed. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Racist Bias in Asian Names[edit]

Why is it that every Asian-American politician in Wikipedia has his name spelled out in Japanese or Chinese almost to underline his foreign origin even though these people were all born in America. You don't see Alexi Giannoulias name being spelled in Greek or Barack Hussein Obama being spelled in Arabic. Why isn't Ralph Nader or Ray Lahood or Spencer Abraham spelled in Arabic? Why is Bobby Jindal not spelled out in Hindi? When is Wikipedia going to wake up and realize how racist it is to keep spelling Asian-American politicians names in Chinese and Japanese characters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.36.91.237 (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. You can't spell Chinese, Japanese kanji, or Korean hanja. Chinese characters aren't spellings.
2. CJK names are not alphabetical like European languages.
3. CJK names are given (by parents) separately from their Western names. Those are not equivalent. "Mike" has absolutely no relations to "Makoto" EXCEPT when applied to Mr. Honda.
4. CK language users (e.g. the press) do not use Western names whenever CJK names are available. Therefore these names are notable. HkCaGu (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the source indicating that Mike Honda was given the name "本田 実" by his parents? In what sense is "本田 実" official? If this is simply a transliteration used by the foreign press, then it does not belong in this English wikipedia article. — Myasuda (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this as well. It shows national-origin bias. Japanese press typically refer to foreign-born Japanese with names written in Katakana as does Japanese Wikipedia, which uses this Katakana as the article title: マイク・ホンダ - http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%9E%E3%82%A4%E3%82%AF%E3%83%BB%E3%83%9B%E3%83%B3%E3%83%80 Unless you have a source that shows that he writes his name this way, the Kanji should be removed. While Japanese Wikipedia also shows the Kanji, there is no reference there either. Regardless, there are different ways to write the same sounds (especially Makoto) so there is no way of knowing if this Kanji is correct without a reference. Even if it is putatively correct, it still shows national origin bias. Honda was born in the US and there is no reason to spell his name using Kanji.
My original response was duplicated from Talk:Charles Djou because the original IP cross-posted the same thing there. I agree Honda's case is different from Djou's. However, you still have the Chinese media that will use the kanji name whenever available. The source may be hidden in the history of either this article or the Japanese article. HkCaGu (talk) 06:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This English wikipedia article does not need to accommodate the Chinese media and its readers any more than it needs to accommodate other foreign countries. We do not write Mike Honda's name in Cyrillic to accommodate Russian readers, or in Greek letters to accommodate the Greek media. — Myasuda (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since there's been no follow-up, I'm going to assume consensus and remove the kanji. If there are objections, bring them up here. — Myasuda (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Line in article perpetuates racist thinking and stereotypes[edit]

"It was during these formative years spent within the camp that young Michael Honda learned that being of Asian descent carried with it a negative connotation in the United States."

Is there a source for this? Or is this just someone speculating about what what he assumes "young Michael Honda" learned way back in 1941?

In any case this pertains to American involvement in World War II, 1941-1945. We were fighting Japanese imperialism, Pearl Harbor had just been bombed, and because of these events, there were very unfortunate and regrettable decisions made regarding US citizens of Japanese descent, for which the United States has, over the years, made multiple amends and apologies.

The present text could easily be construed as suggesting that such "negative connotation" as existed in 1941 exists in 2013, when nothing could be further from the truth - as the career of many Japanese-American politicians attest (Mike Honda, Daniel Inouye, Daniel Akaka, et al.).

It's present in the source in the following paragraph, almost word-for-word: [3]. I'll try to make this more clear in the text. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Health Care Reform[edit]

The description of Mr. Honda's position on the Stupak-Pitts amendment is written in a non-neutral manner. The article's characterization of Stupak-Pitts as "limit[ing] a woman’s ability to purchase coverage for reproductive health services with her own money" is, at the very least, biased and misleading since, when considered in the context of the Affordable Act's individual and employer mandates, the true effect of Stupak Pitts would simply be to prevent people from being forced by their insurance company or their employer to pay for other people's abortions. And even if Stupak-Pitts really would have limited a woman's ability to purchase abortion coverage with her own money (reasonable people can disagree on this), the use of the phrase "reproductive health services" to describe abortion is, in effect, an endorsement of a particular point of view, which is not what Wikipedia is for. Bwrs (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to Ban Body Armor[edit]

In July of 2014, Mike Honda introduced a bill to ban level 3 body armor for anyone not in law enforcement

In september, it was referred to the subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations. This bill would ban anyone except law enforcement and military personnel from obtaining level 3 body armor. In particular, it would exclude reporters from being allowed to wear level 3 body armor, as reported by Russia Today

He was quoted as saying: "We should be asking ourselves, why is this armor available to just anyone, if it was designed to be used only by our soldiers to take to war?". NBC Bay Area Report — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mylifeishard (talk • contribs) 07:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Russia Today is not a reliable source. The vast majority of sources are either local or on blogs, especially gun blogs. This is a minor non-issue and doesn't belong here. Actually, most of his stuff doesn't belong here. Most of the "Legislation" section is very non-neutral, campaign like and doesn't need to be here. For somebody who has been in office for a couple of years, his page is alot long and more detailed than people who have been in office for decades. This is an encyclopedia, not a detailed record of everything he has sponsored. Bgwhite (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation[edit]

Is an investigation by the house ethics committee notable enough for the lead? I do not believe so. Depending omn the outcome, the conclusion might be, but just the fact that he is being investigated isn't. To be honest, I do not believe this piece of news deserves a whole paragraph by itself it is just an investigation. -- GB fan 19:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the controversy may not deserve in the lead. However, Hillary Clinton's e-mail controversy case, initially all the edits were reverted by her supporters as you did. Currently it is described in the article along with the standalone article. It is not a good idea to remove Honda's dark side of story from this article simply it is a current news. Please note that "the allegations leveled against Honda are arguably the most significant that any Bay Area House member has faced in decades."[4] or "The pattern of allegations represented the most serious charges leveled against a Bay Area House member in recent memory."[5].―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To begin with my reverts have nothing to do with supporting Mike Honda. Next what happened in a different situation does not matter here. Every situation deserves to be looked at independently. What I was removing was a news story that an investigation was happening and thought we should wait until the investigation concludes. I love it when people say something is arguably the most something. You know what that means, it means that the same thing is arguably not the most something. That is such a weasel worded sentence because the evidence isn't clear and the person writing wants to push an agenda. I did a partial revert of the last edit to that section. I restored the sources that were removed in what was called a reorganization of the section. The section was left in a state where it violated WP:BLP so I readded the sources so that the negative info was sourced. -- GB fan 11:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for omitting the original sources in the section by mistake. STSC (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I went in and added one sentence about what the charges are. Thanks again that we could get together like this. -- Yamazaki442 (talk) 08:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We must be careful with the wording regarding a living person (WP:BLP). STSC (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

latest edits[edit]

Yamazaki442 is adding news information to the article, about Honda creating a legal defense fund and the fact that he is currently in a close reelection fight. The reelection fight info is being added to the lead. I do not see any need for these to be included at this point. Also, everyone that disagrees with the inclusion of this information is biased and a supporter of Honda according to Yamazaki442. -- GB fan 18:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To add on, this same exact material has been removed by two other editors also, JGriffithSV and Sro23 and has been restored 4 times by Yamazaki442 since it was originally added 1 August. -- GB fan 19:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, and I'll add that the user in question has only edited two pages in his/her entire history - Honda's page and the page of Honda's opponent. Nothing else. I certainly have my own biases, which is why I've restricted my edits to policy-based reversions and cleanup, without adding content. But this is pretty bad conduct, and the editor isn't listening to anyone. Most congressmen are in a perpertual re-election fight, so this isn't anything new and nothing that would define his biography (yet). JGriffithSV (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent updates by Yvarta[edit]

I'm seriously considering reverting all of the recent edits by this user. Having looked them over, there are two major problems. First, the new version reads like a press release and not like an encyclopedic biography. Second, the edits contain multiple instances of bad grammar and typos that become very difficult to unwind piece-by-piece - "heserved in Congress... 2017, and also served...", "He remained in the winning incumbent in the resultant elections", etc. The more I try to figure this stuff out, the more I'm tempted to just scrap all of the edits as having done more harm than good. But that's extreme, so I'd like someone else to weigh in first. JGriffithSV (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused? I haven't added any content, except the lead, which basically didn't exist before. I'm also confused what seems so harmful, as I haven't added any promotional material (or any material, for that matter, except minor copyediting and the in progress lead). Yvarta (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The intro paragraph is supposed to convey why this person is relevant. Honda is relevant because of his service as a Congressman. You completely rewrote that paragraph to minimize the single most important reason why he's relevant, and instead attempted to make it a summary of his entire life. Teachers don't usually warrant Wikipedia pages, no do planning commissioners or even principals. So rather than concisely explaining why Honda is relevant, it now reads like a media bio. That's not appropriate.
Changing "Appropriations" to "Major Appropriations" adds hype, not content. "Early" has no relevance in "Early committees and caucuses". A stint as an elected school board member is not a "teaching position". "DNC and national positions" doesn't make sense, since it emphasizes party positions over his job as a Congressman, which is clearly most important. Nobody would use the term "national positions" to describe Congressional terms of office, and nobody would use the term "state positions" to describe terms in state elected offices either (generally speaking, "position" isn't a good term anyway, since it doesn't distinguish between elected office and appointed job, which is important when writing up an elected official). These kinds of semantic disconnects, bad grammar, and just bad word choices are all throughout the content you modified. Fixing them while trying to maintain as much of your intent as possible is just a very difficult task. And since your changes and new content don't seem to add much value, I'm questioning whether fixing it is even the best route, as compared to just reverting it all. The original "Background/Career" sections made a whole lot more sense than the new hierarchy you've attempted to createJGriffithSV (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the detailed response. I disagree entirely with your interpretation of WP:Lead and MOS:OPENPARA, as the opening paragraph is supposed to provide context as well as supplying the most relevant information, and clarifying his background (schoolteacher/general/princess/former reality star), helps give context to the reader at large. However, if you feel strongly about the other minor points you bring up, I would highly recommend you go through and manually adjust the parts you don't like, instead of undoing the many good changes with a simple total revert. The page overall now much better fits Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies after my edits. I am always open to compromise, especially for minor formatting matters and the nuances of headings. Yvarta (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Mike Honda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Mike Honda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Mike Honda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Honda (congressman)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Honda (congressman). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 18#Honda (congressman) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 02:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mike_Honda&oldid=1207633676"