Talk:Mauna Kea/Archive 2

Protests and opposition
In light of the new section on the TMT protests I would like to propose a couple clean-ups:

in the lead:
 * "the Thirty Meter Telescope...will be the largest telescope ever built" Is not true, the existing Arecibo Observatory is 305 meters (100 times larger collecting area) and the Green Bank Telescope is 100 meters.
 * "construction on a "sacred landscape",[15] replete with endangered species and ongoing cultural practices" "sacred landscape" is leading and there are no endangered species in the construction area
 * "It was designated a National Natural Landmark" in this context implies maybe the TMT or the construction site is a landmark but it should be clear that the entire mountain is listed as a landmark.

in Summit Observatories:
 * "enormous Thirty Meter Telescope" 'enormous' does not sound neutral, the size is in the name of the project and per the first item it is not especially large for a telescope.

disclosure: I work for a Manunakea observatory but I'm not paid to edit and I have no affiliation with TMT. 23:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I would like to amplify a couple of KanoaWithington's points. The only sense in which the TMT will be the "largest" telescope is that it will have the largest glass mirror to date (soon to be superseded by the European Extremely Large Telescope with a 39-metre mirror). Many, many telescopes are vastly larger than the TMT, those Kanoa mentions, and up to 21 km/13 miles on each axis if we count arrays such as the Very Large Array.
 * And "enormous" is clearly not a neutral or encyclopedic term, and should not be allowed to stand.
 * Awien (talk) 01:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, many of the sources based the proposed date of operation in comparison to the other two extremely large telescopes to qualify their claim and perhaps some wording from TMT that might have been accurate at one time. The clear fact is that there is yet no ELT built and that the three telescopes in construction (including the TMT) are considered to be the worlds largest telescopes by far. This can be sourced directly to Guiness Book of World records so it would be better to edit that for accuracy and clarity.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the use of the term "enormous" is POV. "Extremely large" is sufficient.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Re "Their construction on a "sacred landscape", replete with endangered species and ongoing cultural practices, continues to be a topic of debate and protest. Studies are under way to determine their effect on the summit ecology, particularly on the rare Wēkiu bug. It[clarification needed] was designated a National Natural Landmark in 1972":
 * "replete": filled, stuffed, fully imbued; gorged, sated (per OED) is a loaded and exaggerated term here;
 * "sacred landscape" very adequately covers cultural importance, which can be elaborated in the appropriate section. The lead, which is a synopsis, is not the right place. At most, we might qualify it as "culturally significant sacred landscape", though that's still redundant;
 * unless I'm mistaken, the environmental impact studies have concluded that the construction of the TMT poses no threat to any species, including the wekiu bug which is in any case the only candidate for designation as an endangered species. "Replete with ... endangered species" is patent nonsense;
 * "extremely large" is still a value judgment, and as such, I am going to remove it;
 * to call a 30-metre telescope the "largest telescope" is patent nonsense given the existence of Arecibo at 305m., Effelsburg and Green Bank at 100m, Jodrell Bank at 76m, not to mention arrays such as the VLA with a maximum baseline of 36 kilometres (that's 22 MILES). The facts are the facts.
 * given that you clearly have an axe to grind here, you might consider that you need to recuse yourself from further editing, and instead work through discussion here, as you recommended to Kanoa Withington;
 * am going to edit in light of the above.
 * Awien (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You have made no effect on my opinion. It is unchanged in this aspect. Edit warring is never the answer and you do not have a consensus for this particular change while I have supported other changes made. "Replete" is not a word to watch, or a peacock term. I understand your opinion but I disagree with it. "Sacred Landscape" involves religion. Culture is a separate aspect. The TMT EIS is not the ultimate source or standard. Replete ...with endangered species is not nonsense as again this has been and continues to be the concerns and we do not delete, hide or remove those stated concerns because of our own POV on the situation of the facts. The TMT is indeed in the classification of telescpes referred to as ELT because they are Extremely Large telescopes. I do agree and have already stated that calling it the world's largest telescope is nonsense, but your example are not optical telescopes. As I stated the three telescopes being prepared would be the largest telescopes...of that type. The measurements refer t the mirrors and those have never been made this large and the difference or leap in size is substantial.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe the answer to the concern of Awien is a simple matter of two different needs. First. A general edit as I don't think the editor is going to alter their opinion against the specific word use. So just changing "replete" to "along with" has a more neutral sounding tone. The second thing I think needed is balance to the statement such as, "..while supporters of the project point out that these issues were included in the EIS for the project". I will try this in good faith and see if that works.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * But there are no endangered species in the summit area. You may not credit the TMT EIS but it cites sources for endangered and threatened species and there is no evidence that any exist in the summit area. The determination by the USFWS in 2011 is that the wēkiu bug is not endangered. It is not "threatened" either though it is listed for review for that status. kanoa (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is what I ended up with which I believe covers the concerns of everyone accurately: "Their construction on a "sacred landscape", and concerns over endangered species and ongoing cultural practices, continues to be a topic of debate and protest, while supporters insist all concerns have been addressed".--Mark Miller (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Religious and cultural practices
There is a difference between a religious practice and a cultural practice and both take place on the summit area or surrounding area of the glacial reserve. Ahus or alters are erected for religious practices and practitioners do other spiritual ceremonies as well as Kahuna and groups. But there are specific "cultural practices that are not necessarily a part of the religion and still practiced by modern Hawaiians by leaving the umbilical cords of newborns up to the summit to be left. There are also many people that practice individual cultural practices that are less known but still carried on.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Bloat and off-topic
Since this article achieved Featured Article status (~ 4 years ago?), it has suffered considerable edit creep.
 * The lead has become seriously bloated, notably in two areas:
 * - the discussion of whether or not Mauna Kea is the tallest / highest / most prominent mountain, which is excessively detailed, wanders off-topic, and contains unencyclopedic phraseology (tremendously, permitted ... ); most of this needs to be removed to the appropriate section, with a much briefer mention in the lead
 * - excessive detail concerning the controversy surrounding the construction of the Thirty Metre Telescope; this level of detail gives undue weight in an article about the whole mountain (itself about a quarter of the actual island), and should be moved to the article on the controversy itself.

I personally am not going to be able to do much on this in the next while, but I am raising the issues so that hopefully we can get the ball rolling. Awien (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Similarly, the recently added section in the body of the article on the Thirty Meter Telescope protests is misplaced in this article. Opposition to further development in the Science Reserve is already mentioned in the Summit observatories section, and a link there to the article on the Thirty Meter Telescope protests itself is all that is necessary in the article on the mountain. (In any case, the protests are in fact a news topic, not an intrinsic aspect of the mountain).
 * Conversely, the economic activity on the lower slopes of the mountain and the communities located there gets barely a mention, and the economic importance of astronomy seems not to be mentioned at all.
 * ''"The lead has become seriously bloated, notably in two areas:
 * the discussion of whether or not Mauna Kea is the tallest / highest / most prominent mountain, which is excessively detailed, wanders off-topic, and contains unencyclopedic phraseology (tremendously, permitted ... ); most of this needs to be removed to the appropriate section, with a much briefer mention in the lead"
 * excessive detail concerning the controversy surrounding the construction of the Thirty Metre Telescope; this level of detail gives undue weight in an article about the whole mountain (itself about a quarter of the actual island), and should be moved to the article on the controversy itself.
 * Whether or not the lede is bloated I cannot say however the discussion of the mountain's height (or record breaking height), other prominence and/or sacred status in indigenous culture/religion is not off topic. I very strongly disagree with that. I do agree we should look at the phrasing and make sure it is accurate in both claim phrasing. The subject of the Mauna Kea observatories has strong consensus for the article and the above discussions from a few years ago demonstrate this. The details in the article over the protests about the Thirty Meter Telescope are a part of the overall opposition to development of the mountain and it is real, accurately covered and within due weight from the fact that this is the most unprecedented protest and demonstration in 122 years in the islands. Seriously. There are sources for that. Governor Ige made the statement of these protests being unprecedented in state history and several sources claim this to be the largest ongoing protest and demonstration since the overthrow and annexation. I have no problem looking further into a general edit of the lede fro brevity as I already did for the TMT section.
 * ''"Similarly, the recently added section in the body of the article on the Thirty Meter Telescope protests is misplaced in this article. Opposition to further development in the Science Reserve is already mentioned in the Summit observatories section, and a link there to the article on the Thirty Meter Telescope protests itself is all that is necessary in the article on the mountain. (In any case, the protests are in fact a news topic, not an intrinsic aspect of the mountain).
 * No, it is placed exactly where it should be, as a subsection of the Mauna Kea Observatories with its own section header. These are two different but related subjects that cannot be separated. I do however, again, feel that the overall length could be edited for brevity.
 * "*Conversely, the economic activity on the lower slopes of the mountain and the communities located there gets barely a mention, and the economic importance of astronomy seems not to be mentioned at all."
 * We should add some content about the lower slopes and economic info if relevant. I can support that.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * How about straight-up replacing the lead with the FAC'd version? I agree with you on all counts. Res Mar 14:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I would support the FAC'd version of the lead with some tweaks.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to lose the alternate name of the original Native Hawaiians, although the first line could be slightly different: "Mauna Kea (/ˌmɔːnə ˈkeɪ.ə/ or /ˌmaʊnə ˈkeɪ.ə/; Hawaiian: [ˈmɔunə ˈkɛjə]), also called Mauna a Wākea in Hawaiian culture..."--Mark Miller (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Should we re-review the article for FA?--Mark Miller (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to drag yourself to the stockades if you don't have to. Res Mar 18:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, but I did want to ask to be sure.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I also agree with restoring the lead as it stood at the time of the FA review, and have no issue with adding Mauna a Wākea. Somebody else should do it, though. I'm no techie (at all!) Awien (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Mark, I seem not to have made myself clear about the protests section, but I think actually we basically agree. Now that there's an article devoted to the protests as such, all that's needed in the Observatories section of the Mauna Kea article is a brief mention and a link to the protests article. What do people think? Awien (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think I misunderstood you. I just completed a bare bones edit to address your concerns past what I would like, but what I can live with. Is there something specific that still concerns you?--Mark Miller (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of restoring the lead. I also like the idea of keeping disambiguation of the name but we don't agree about which names are original or traditional. We could have specific discussion about it or just list alternate spellings and leave it alone. kanoa (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with that. There is only one traditional name with one variant that means the same thing. It's a matter of Mauna a Wākea, which can be sourced to a claim of being the traditional name and the alternate spelling of Mauna o Wākea which only has examples of use. The most common, current academic spelling is Mauna a Wākea.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, in fairness, if an employee of the Mauna Kea observatory is being pinged, I believe should be asked for their opinion here as well.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about, Mark Miller? I sent a notification to Kanoa, a participant in this discussion, that there were new comments, a participant moreover whom you virtually ordered to refrain from editing directly and to work through discussion. That is a normal courtesy. You, on the other hand, appear to be trying to bring in who has not been involved but whom you clearly see as a natural ally. That has all the appearances of vote rigging.
 * As for Kanoa (whom I had never heard of till two days ago) being in a position of conflict of interest, that doesn't hold water. He is employed at an existing telescope that is not scheduled for decommissioning, and therefore has no vested interest whatsoever in the construction of the TMT. There is no reason why he shouldn't edit on the same footing as the rest of us.
 * Awien (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't order anyone to do anything. That was an over dramatization of my telling the editor that they have a financial connection to the Mauna Kea observatories and asking them not to edit the telescope they work at and that they might still be in conflict of interest in other areas where there is a personal and or financial relationship. But if we want to at least have balance to the discussion, than at least pinging someone as interested in the TMT and observatories as KanoaWithington and hasn't edited in a year, is asking for input by an interested party in a neutral manner. I believe there may be reason for some balance with their participation. I am not asking for support of a position but simply input on the discussion. Laualoha has no personal connection to the Mauna Kea Observatories, the TMT etc., and I have never interacted with them. The editor is likely not going to respond.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I pinged someone I knew was active on Wikipeda with an interest in Mauna Kea and the TMT protests from their activity. I said I have not interacted with the editor and that is true, but when I noticed the editor was inactive for so long I used the e-mail feature to ping them and when they responded I discovered that we are FB contacts. We have never met and our interaction on social media have been pretty limited but I wanted to be open about that. I have no idea how that effects the discussion since we have never met, have no personal relationship and I know many editors on Wikipedia are FB friends but still, better safe than sorry.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems a couple of reminders may be in order:
 * Sock puppetry
 * Are you are making an accusation of a sock? there is a venue for sock puppet investigations. I am not a sock puppet. A meat puppet is a specific accusation as well, that an editor would be asked to support a specific side of a dispute or discussion. I am not a meat puppet. I have not been asked to support a side of a dispute or discussion nor has anyone been asked to do so. Please be careful with this accusation. If you have no proof or evidence it is inappropriate to raise this as a possible issue. It is just ridiculous. The editor was pinged about the traditional name of Mauna Kea that was questioned by a Mauna Kea Observatories employee.
 * Canvassing
 * Seriously, this is disruptive that you just toss out a bullet list of accusations of violations of these guidelines but I don't think you even bothered to read any of them. In WP:Canvassing under WP:APPNOTE it details the appropriate manners of "canvassing" such as: "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:" it gives a bullet list of things that are alright to do under this guideline and one of them is: "Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article. Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics). Editors known for expertise in the field. I became familiar with who the editor was on Wikipedia threw my edits and research of the tops of Mauna Kea, the Thirty Meter Telescope, the protests and other Hawaiian related articles.
 * Wikipedia is not a newspaper
 * This bullet lists a number of things, non of which apply; Jounalism. Basically we are not reporting from the field our first hand accounts. That is not happening here. I am not there, I waited a good amount of time to be sure the notability was lasting, that the basic information was well documented by secondary sources. I also did not go into full details that the sources do, for the time being, specifically because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. I am not concerned about updating full details as they happen because edits are not News reports. Who's who" concerns adding names of non notable people who may not need to be mentioned. Only the most involved participants are mentioned. This is about something people are involved with so some names (biographical content) is added where appropriate. Diary'' is stating that not every single piece of information is needed. What is or isn't important has to be discussed but I do not insist everything I want must be kept of added. I don't add excessive detail or a full blow by blow.
 * What Wikipedia is not
 * Awien (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. I believe this applies to such editors as User:BeckerCommunications the marketing firm hired by the TMT, User talk:RobFmK, it is believed he may have inserted his own blog to source scientific claims and probably user Kanoa who edited across the full range of articles to remove sourced content and accuse others of POV editing while at the same time editing the article of the very place they are employeed on Mauna Kea. But you throw the kitchen sink at me because I pinged an uninvolved editor with interest in this subject because you don't like it?
 * None of those apply to me or the editor I pinged.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

COI and POV editing on Mauna Kea and TMT related articles
It is clear to me now that because of the number of accusations flying around that it may be time to look closer at the editors involved in these subjects, their financial connections to the subjects and whether or not these subjects fall under the General sanctions for political articles from a recent Arbcom decision. I have come under fire recently due to my interest in Mauna Kea, the Thirty Meter telescope and all related articles and subjects. I have been working very hard to deal with COI editors directly and not create a situation where attention is drawn to editors and their edits aginst policy and guidelines. However, since one editor feels inclined to hurl every possible accusation they can think of at me, for simply having an interest in the subjects of dispute between science and Native Hawaiians. Since I am being focused on, I feel my trying to be sensitive to the subject, and the related COI editors, including one paid advocate of the TMT Corporation, to be collaborative with the community, has simply created a situation where others are less sensitive. Therefore, screw sensitivity. I am now going to be flat out blatant about all editors who have been contributing to these subjects who have a financial, or personal connection. The editor I pinged, I actually thought had a COI themselves, and even removed an image based on a personal connection, but that was such a very minimal violation it really was of no consequence. Someone else had hidden it. I un-hid it and then removed it entirely. Then moved it to a related article because it had good encyclopedic value. Images is where were are allowed OR and placement into an article has not reached a consensus as to whether that is right or wrong.

I have no COI with these subjects and have been forced to defend myself over and over again on this subject from both people I respect on Wikipedia (and did so as accurately as I did now) and people with real COI themselves. Enough. Time to let Admin in on this and perhaps prepare an Arbcom complaint. If you want to accuse me of misdoings without any evidence in such an uncivil manner, than perhaps it is time to reveal all the editors who have been editing Wikipedia who have a financial connection to a 1.5 billion dollar project. If you intend to throw the kitchen sink at me, then perhaps going by the book is exactly what should now happen. No more sensitivity. All COI editors will be reported to the COI noticeboard. All incidents will be reported to the correct venue to gauge reaction at the very least. If the gloves are coming off, please expect everyone to now share this spotlight. I have been holding back mass amounts of issues and concerns trying to be civil and show aloha. If that is being taken advantage of, I can be a normal Wikipedia editor and begin formal dispute resolution. This is no content dispute. This is behavior of those connected to an international, multibillion dollar level project. If you intend to raise issues with my editing, I will no longer hold back my concerns. And I haven't even looked very far. What will we find when we look closely at the editors and IP's from the TMT article? Also.....I believe this article now certainly qualifies for Re-review of FA status.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Now, I have a question for Awien. Why are you asking me to treat an editor with a declared COI to the Mauna Kea observatories on an equal footing as everyone else and then throw all this crap at me? What is your angle sir? Why are you trying to push away another editor and defend one with a COI to the subject. Seriously. WTF?--Mark Miller (talk) 03:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't need to repeat myself on this; I explained clearly the first time. Awien (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You never explained why you are posting links to policy and guidelines without giving a specific manner in which you believe they were violated.....so, yes.....you need to repeat yourself with better clarity or stop all together. You also have not explained why you believe Koa is not in violation of COI editing or why you believe they should be held in the same manner as editors with no COI. Did you wish to ping the Marketing company for the TMT? Exactly where do you justify the ignoring a declared COI and still trying to draw all the attention to me, without any cause or reason. Many people call that unfounded accusations. So do I.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Copied from what I said above: "[Kanoa] is employed at an existing telescope that is not scheduled for decommissioning, and therefore has no vested interest whatsoever in the construction of the TMT". To amplify, he is paid by the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope, and is not what you call "an employee of the Mauna Kea observatory [sic]" at all. He has nothing to gain from the construction of the TMT, he has nothing to lose by its cancellation, he has, as I also already said, "no vested interest". Nothing either ethically or in the COI guidelines precludes his editing any Mauna Kea-related article whatsoever. That includes even the CFHT article, subject to the same editing guidelines as everybody else. Even paid editing is (grudgingly) tolerated, and this situation is so far from that, it's hardly in the same galaxy. It's really time you let this go, Mark. Awien (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No need to ping or pong me further. I stand very firm in my opinion that this editor would have continued to edit Wikipedia in a manner that goes against community consensus. Your argument has no merit as there is a subject and article on Wikipedia: Mauna Kea Observatories. Kanoa is indeed employed within that specific site at the Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope. He does indeed benefit financially from these specific two subjects and I believe any such editing on these pages should be reported to WP:COIN. All of the telescopes and their employees on Mauna Kea stand to loose a great deal if the TMT is not built and much if it is. There is no doubt about that, and sufficient evidence to provide for any report, if needed. The purpose of warning editors is to discourage them from behavior the consensus has found to be les than desirable. Kanoa is far too connected both financially, professionally and personally to be editing any of these subjects. My experience with Dispute Resolution as well as Editor Retention have influence me in how I approach editors in COI of the subjects they edit. Since it is a guideline and not a policy, a consensus is required to truly ban an editor from a subject. I doubt that is needed here for one reason. Kanoa has disclosed their COI after it was pointed out and has been civil for the most part. He does feel a little harassed and I feel bad for that, especially since the editor joined Wikipedia in 2006, a year before me. I believe they should be left alone for the most part and allowed to edit subjects freely that they are not in direct conflict of interest with.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * MarkMiller I wish you would just file a COI complaint instead of speculating about my fitness to contribute to this subject. The unwitting COI edit I made can be found in this ; a technical update to the instrument configuration that another editor replaced immediately after you reverted it. The notion that employees of existing observatories have a COI with TMT being built is absurd - after a construction period of at least 10 years the only thing that will happen is many of us will loose our jobs as funding consolidates and older observatories are decommissioned. kanoa (talk) 08:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Short Street, Sometown, North America, is home to a Virginia Fried Chicken restaurant, a McDougall’s restaurant, a Brenda’s Little Girl restaurant, a Gwendolyn’s restaurant, a Hotdog Queen restaurant, a Burrito Bell restaurant, a Darby’s restaurant … So is Smith Street a restaurant because all those independent restaurants are located there in close proximity to each other?
 * (Cheat sheet: No, Smith Street is not a restaurant, it is a street, where a number of restaurants are located).
 * Awien (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Food for thought
Mark, please don’t take it amiss if I say that underlying a lot of this there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding (on your part) of Wikipedia policy concerning point of view. Firstly, to have a point of view is not the same thing as having a conflict of interest. Secondly, having a point of view is not a bar to editing on WP. The policies on POV concern themselves only with the constraints that govern how points of view can be represented in articles so that balance and neutrality are maintained.

You might also consider the possibility that if you "have been forced to defend [your]self over and over again", meaning that a lot of people have a problem with what you are doing, there is in fact an issue with what you are doing.

Awien (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi again . I shouldn't have to tell you the flaw in your logic that, just having to defend one's self, does not mean automatically, that they are in the wrong. Having concerns and being able to address those concerns with reasonable editors is one thing. Trying to argue with someone that cannot see the forest through the tress, is another. Look, it isn't amiss in trying to communicate with an editor to improve the project and the article but you have not brought up a single specific, legitimate concern. Other than linking to policy or guideline sections and articles, you have not stated how I am violating any of them. I have been transparent by stating that the person I pinged is on my social media contact list. I occasionally interact with that person. I have never met them. I have no personal relationship with them. They live in Hawaii and I live in California. The only reason I know the editor is on my list is because of a Wikipedia function to contact the editor via e-mail to weigh in on a cultural dispute involving the traditional name of Mauna Kea. In the reply they used their full name and it looked familiar. I checked and it was indeed someone on I had either accepted a "friend request" from or made a request to. I have many contacts from social media in Hawaii even though I have not been to the islands since I was very young.
 * I believe you fail here in more than a few ways, but most importantly is, everyone has a point of view. You have one. I have one. Every editor has a point of view. Our policy is not in regards to our having a point of view. Everyone with interests in a subject is going to have a view, opinion and even biases. The policy is NPOV - NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW, which means; "..representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". A Conflict of interest is: involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. (The word interest refers here to something that a person has a stake in or stands to benefit from.)[n 1]. I do not have a stake in the outcome and I do not stand to benefit from the coverage or the resulting final decision. You are clearly an interested party with no COI, no Terms of Use issues, and no financial connection. I have not agreed with you on may points but I would point out that I have engaged in the discussion, and even edited this article to reflect your concerns that I was willing to live with (a part of collaboration and consensus building), knowing that your concerns in the discussion should be addressed, one way or another. I feel the same with many other editors contributing here. I have no conflict of interest on this subject. I have no personal relationship with anyone involved in the protests, the observatories or Mauna Kea. If you feel there is a concern needing to be addressed, please address it directly.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)