Talk:Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

H.R. 40 - Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act - Overcoming Opposition Neutrality[edit]

H.R. 40 - Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act

The overcoming opposition section is clearly biased. Even the title of the section suggests that the idea is inherently good and that opposition must, should and will be overcome. In the section, statements like 'this should not be used as an excuse' and discussing what an 'elite set of Black people' need or don't need. Perhaps the section could be made neutral by changing the title of the section to 'opposition' and counterarguments could be included in it. The section should clearly indicate who has argued certain opinions and include a greater variety of opinions.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved.

Discussions:

Consensus to not move, 16 April 2020, from H.R. 40 - Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act to H.R. 40, see discussion.

Requested move 16 April 2020[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: Consensus to not move. (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

H.R. 40 - Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act → H.R. 40 – This appears to be the common name, and the more likely search term for this subject. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I was actually about to create this article when I saw somebody had already done so. I initially couldn't find it due to the extremely long title! Its common name is H.R. 40 and this should therefore be the page's name. Xbee30 (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as ambiguous, the numbers reset every two years. However, H.R. 40 (116th Congress) is an option if more well-known that the current title; that would put it in line with H.R. 2189 (113th Congress), H.R. 3174 (113th Congress), etc. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Apart from being ambiguous even within the USA, the proposed title H.R. 40 is unrecognisable to most of the rest of the world. Andrewa (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as if the counting gets reset every two years the H.R. 40 will face rapid obsolescence.PrisonerB (talk) 11:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppoose: Not only does every two-year term of the U.S. Congress have an H.R. 40 (so probably 100+ of them over time), but many U.S. states use the same terminology in their state legislatures, so there are likely multiple bills named H.R. 40 still active today.
Move to another name, probably "Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act" or maybe "Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Bill"; that's the usual way of addressing legislation, and I suspect that this subject will end up being about more than just the present 116th Congress, since I've found at-least-similar versions of the bill back to at least 1993 (see version of the bill 1993 version), and some sources (unsure of reliability) claim back to 1989, which is unusual for legislation. Though it says "Act" in the legislation's own wording, traditionally legislative proposals are called "Bills", because until and unless they become law, they are not acts, so "Act" is a bit misleading if a bill doesn't get signed. "H.R. 40" by itself is ambiguous: Not only does every two-year term of the U.S. Congress have an H.R. 40, most of which have not been versions of this bill (so probably 90+ of them over time), but many U.S. states use the same terminology in their state legislatures, so there are likely multiple bills named H.R. 40 active even today, and hundreds in history. And since a similar version has been introduced in multiple terms of Congress, putting a specific Congress in the title would make it outdated every even year in January. Perhaps H.R. 40 should remain a redirect with a hatnote at the top of this target article, if no other H.R. 40 is a plausably-notable topic; that seems to be what we do with other page names like that. --Closeapple (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree that H.R. 40 should redirect to this article (as it has for the past month) until and unless some other notable topic comes up that could share that name. But whether that ambiguity is then handled by a DAB or hatnote or whatever we can't decide until then. Andrewa (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have made reference to this discussion as part of a broader RfC on ambiguous sequentially numbered titles like these. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.