Talk:Palila v. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources

Plaintiff
So was the plaintiff of this case really a bird? That might make a DYK hook. I suppose "anyone can sue over anything" in civil courts. But it might be a bit unusual. W Nowicki (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it is unusual. I remember vaugly some judge saying "the fact that this bird managed to wiggle into the case title, the first time this has been done, is an indication of its importance." Or something similar. I don't remember the source or the exact wording for that matter :-( Res Mar 21:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

34th Century
It appears there's a typo in the intro to the article... it says '34th century' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.31.37 (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That was what we call vandalism and was fixed (although briefly said 19th instead of 18th) W Nowicki (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Mauna Kea Observatory
The statement "With construction of the Mauna Kea Observatory on the summit of the tallest mountain of the island, conservationalists demanded a plan to protect its ecosystem" seems to be totally off-topic. The Observatory is not in the mamane-naio forest and doesn't have any impact on it. Issues regarding the summit are totally separate. Awien (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Went ahead and took it out pending possible though unlikely justification for its inclusion. Awien (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The summit observatory doesn't have an theoretical impact on the forest, but it does morally. The construction of the summit observatory and the world-class concerns raised to its possible damage to the ecosystem raised environmental concerns of Mauna Kea overall, especially for the mamame-naoi forest, and was one of the major pre-empts to the case imo. Res Mar 03:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If I’m understanding you correctly here, (and assuming that "theoretical" is a slip of the tongue for "direct") you are confusing simultaneity/proximity with cause and effect. In other words, concern about the Observatory and concern about the potential extinction of the palila are two different issues in the larger context of the whole environmental movement that is concerned with every aspect of the way we humans are damaging the planet. In fact, according to the dates given in the article, the first attempts to save the mamane-naio forest date back to the 1920s, while concern about the summit dates back only to the early 1970s when the first large telescopes were constructed. The latter did not lead to the former.
 * So again, kudos for your enthusiasm in wanting to add content to Wikipedia, but please try to be more cautious about jumping to conclusions, and more careful about accuracy in general. The huge impact Wikipedia has in the real world is something we need to keep in mind all the time. Cheers, Awien (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Two comments: this article needs to be precise with the chronology of the case. Mentioning the chronology of the development of Mauna Kea would also help. E.g. exactly when was the fencing proposed, how many years did they do it, when was ESA passed, when was the lawsuit filed, argued, etc.
 * Second, I could imagine effects both directions, e.g. the road construction in 1964 raised concerns about the total mountain ecology leading to this case, or perhaps this case made the issue of the Wēkiu bug a reason to hold up the TMT. But of course opinions and conjection are not allowed. We need to cite reliable sources that state a clear cause and effect and not guess one by mere juxtaposition. Also should mention I ran across the major land user in the area in the 1910s Alfred Wellington Carter whose cousin George R. Carter was governor became a fan of forest preserves. W Nowicki (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)