User talk:Arjuna808

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Arjuna808, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Khoikhoi 19:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Thanks 2 Ocean acidification 3 Western New Guinea 4 Userboxes 5 Native Hawaiians 5.1 Face Value 5.2 Alternate POV 5.3 Friendship of Cleveland with Liliuokalani 5.4 Blount Report 6 Sir David's Long-beaked Echidna 7 Marine mammals of New Guinea 8 Western New Guinea 9 Fauna of New Guinea - Birds 10 "right wing..." 11 Mahalo 12 Tarsiers 13 Edit war 14 Asmat regency 15 Western New Guinea 16 Planet Earth 17 Apology Resolution, Blount Report, etc.

[edit] Thanks

Hey, thanks for all your contributions. I noticed that you added some info to Papua (Indonesian province). Keep in mind that there's also a Western New Guinea article. --Khoikhoi 07:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Arjuna808. You can just leave a message on my talk page next time rather than leaving an email. But hey, I like emails. ;) To move a page, you just click on the "move" tab right next to the "history" tab at the top of the page.

I also noticed you wanted to delete Template:Arjuna808. Simply add {{delete}} at the top of the page or {{db|(state your reason here)}}. --Khoikhoi 03:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ocean acidification

Hi there. Sorry to bother you, but I notice you've just added a series of references to the ocean acidification article. I think they're good ones to add, but could you reference them in the article please? In the next couple of years there'll be no shortage of scientific papers on the subject, so I reckon it'd be best only to add new references if they make a new point relevant to the article (or supplant an older reference). Anyway, you may well be planning on doing this anyway. Cheers, --Plumbago 10:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I think there might be an error in the top reference. The page numbers it cites aren't quite right, 351-33, but I'm not au fait with the reference.

Aloha. Good point - hadn't really had time to take the crack at it that I'd like to, namely adding additional detail mainly based on the Royal Society report and other papers - fish hypercampnia/acidosis etc. Just wanted to get the info up for the layman. So in the interim, I'll switch over most of the previous new references I added to a new section on "Further Readings". Cheers. Arjuna 02:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I'd forgotten to add these other effects to the article, so it's good that you're thinking about them. If you can extend the article with details about them, that'd be great - especially as I think the organisms that are affected are more familiar to the layman reading the article (who's probably never heard of a foram). Cheers, --Plumbago 09:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It's going to take me a bit to get that up, but will work on it. Btw, I forgot to change the page numbers but will get to that tomorrow. Aloha, Arjuna 09:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Western New Guinea

Hi Arjuna. I'm a bit concerned about your edit here. I know it's internationally recognized as Papua, and thanks for making the article more neutral, but is that accurate? I'm saying that because Papua is only part of Western New Guinea, it seems that we're forgetting West Irian Jaya Province. What I'm trying to say is, why would Western New Guinea be recognized as Papua if Papua only comprises part of Western New Guinea? --Khoikhoi 03:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The reason why we have an article about western New Guinea is because of a large dispute two years ago between these two users. One user wanted to push the Papuan POV, and call it West Papua, but "western New Guinea" is more neutral, because it's more geographical then political. Yes, perhaps something could be mentioned at the top of the article.

Oh, by the way, new comments on talk pages always go at the bottom. And don't forget to sign your name like this: ~~~~. --Khoikhoi 21:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes

I changed the format of the userboxes on your userpage to a table format which should be more manageable for you. If you don't like it, you're welcome to revert it. I also updated the location of one userbox and removed two deleted userboxes. — Nathan ^(talk) _{/ 02:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)}

[edit] Native Hawaiians

Hey Arjuna, thanks for your note. I appreciate your concern regarding the Akaka Bill, but it seems you're still a bit misinformed. Considering both the Morgan Report of 1894 and the Native Hawaiians Study Comission report of 1983 as "whitewashes" isn't really fair at all. Certainly, the Morgan Report conclusions and testimony were never challenged or recanted (the way testimony to Blount was), and the bigger problem with the Apology Bill is its complete lack of historical accuracy and operative provisions (as noted by the Supreme Court in Rice v. Cayetano, which cited it but made its judgement based on facts in the record).

Furthermore, I'm concerned that you feel it necessary to label activists who challenge the historical mythology of the hawaiian sovereignty movement as "conservative". It would be just as NPOV to label the sovereignty activists as "radical" or "extremist". It seems like an inappropriate word for the context, when a more neutral stance can be taken.

If you have specific questions regarding the facts of what transpired in 1893, I encourage you to read the both the Blount Report, the Morgan Report, and the Native Hawaiians Study Comission report (all online). I'm more than willing to help you find specific information, and thank you very much for helping with the article! --JereKrischel 23:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, almost forgot, here are the links to the various reports: NHSC Report (1983), Morgan Report, 1894, Blount Report (1893). --JereKrischel 23:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Last thing, regarding "broad support for the bill" - what you say is true on the political level (nearly all of the political insiders in Hawaii are staunchly for the Akaka Bill), but it is clearly not true for the general population - see this recent survey regarding the Akaka Bill. One can speculate as to why the political machine in Hawaii has lined up behind the Akaka Bill (perhaps for a bigger share of federal dollars, or pandering to what is seen as a "swing vote"), but they are clearly out of sync with the general population. --JereKrischel 23:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Face Value

Are you suggesting that the U.S. Government had no role in encouraging the overthrow? Really? The Morgan report has never been challenged? Really? What is your source for this assertion? I don't take native Hawaiian sovereignty activists, many of whom I would completely agree with you are radical and extremist, at face value, and conversely, you might find it both salubrious and instructive to not always take official government reports at face value.

Interesting word you use there, "encouraging". I think the case can be made that annexation was encouraged (and in fact was negotiated as early as Kamehameha III, who died before he was able to sign the treaty he had agreed to), but that's a far cry from asserting that U.S. peacekeepers or Minister Stevens directly aided or abetted the Committee of Safety.

Insofar as challenges to the Morgan Report, my understanding is that there was one editorial in 1898 that critiqued it and defended Cleveland, but no further investigations, nor court cases, nor evidence was ever brought forth (and certainly, people as powerful as Cleveland and Liliuokalani had the means with which to bring forward additional evidence). My sources include the Morgan Report, the Blount Report, the Native Hawaiians Study Comission Report, Gavan Daws (Shoal of Time), Ernest Andrade (Unconquerable Rebel), Twigg-Smith (Hawaiian Sovereignty: Do the Facts Matter?), Kuykendall, newspapers of the era, and of course pro-sovereignty pamphlets, books and websites.

I think you're right to be skeptical of the government reports, which is why I was always more interested in the details of testimony than the digested opinions of the committees. The government report of Blount was especially interesting, being a secret investigation which was being used by Cleveland to pressure President Dole to reinstate the Queen...check out The Rest of The Rest of The Story for a quick overview on how Blount and Morgan crossed paths. --JereKrischel 05:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate POV

If you want to have Bruce Fein's report mentioned and linked up, that's totally legit. However, if so then the article should also balance it with the alternative POV.

Isn't the alternative POV the Apology Resolution itself? Although people have attacked Fein's character and motivations, to date I haven't seen any rebuttal to the points he brought up...and believe me, I've looked!

If no one has explicity rebutted him, then perhaps that is because those involved in the debate didn't think it even merited such attention.

That's another ad hominem attack, though - on the merits, on the facts themselves, no rebuttal has occured because there are no rational responses. It was given enough attention to attack his character, in an attempt to discredit his assertions - had there been real arguments to be made, I'm sure they would have happened. Of course, I could be wrong, and maybe somewhere out there someone has done a detailed rebuttal. The problem I have though is that instead of providing an alternative POV reference that was a detailed rebuttal, all there were were ad hominem attacks. Granted, we can't really know whether or not that was because someone was too busy to do a real rebuttal, or because, as I claim, there is no response, but until then, echoing character attacks doesn't seem to be very NPOV.

As for the poll results you cite, you're going to have to come up with a more unbiased source than GI, who obviously has a dog in this fight.

Unfortunately, every poll ever conducted on the issue has been by a source that could be seen as biased (OHA got interesting results with a set of particularly leading questions once). If you read the GRIH questions, I think you can get a good idea of any bias that might be there - they also released their raw data so you can chop it up how you like.

I actually don't have a dog in this fight, but when I look up a Wikipedia article, I want the facts, not bias, which is what comes through in many of your edits. In any event, rather than get into a revert war, why don't we try to work cooperatively to find some neutral language we can all agree on?

My apologies if bias seems to permeate my edits - I do strive towards NPOV, and I know I'm not always successful (which is exactly why I appreciate your help!). I am particular about the facts though, and I'm afraid sometimes the bald statement of fact is not always NPOV. I'm sure together we can find compromise wording! --JereKrischel 05:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Friendship of Cleveland with Liliuokalani

Arjuna --- Anyone who states or believes (claims or conjectures, actually) that it was the intent of "the USA" to participate in overthrowing the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893 is faced with an insurmountable reality that rips the false belief to shreds: the friendship of US president Grover Cleveland with Hawaiian queen Liliuokalani, and Cleveland's initial efforts to aid the restoration of her rule. It has never been a secret that Cleveland personally entertained then-queen Kapiolani and then-princess Liliuokalani at the White House in 1887. Hawaiian-language accounts of their relationship show that it was definitely friendship. Not only that, Cleveland's foreign policy of not interfering in other countries' affairs has been known for over a hundred years. Under Cleveland, there was NO WAY that "the USA" would help to overthrow his personal friend Liliuokalani, as an intentional foreign policy decision of his administration. Agent X 21:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

In the spirit of full disclosure, Cleveland had been elected by January 17, 1893, but he had not been inagurated - he took office in March of 1893. That being said, Agent X is correct in pointing out that President Cleveland arguably made every effort, in secret, to restore the Queen to the throne. As a personal fan of Cleveland, who was a veto-mad president who had a child out of wedlock and didn't ever give into political pressure, I have to believe that the only thing that could have ended his support of the Queen was incontrovertible fact. He wrote very strongly on December 18, 1893 regarding what he termed an "act of war", and I can only believe that he would not have given up on his convictions unless proven wrong.

Mahalo again, Arjuna, for your help. As you can tell from my off-wikipedia writing, I have taken this whole era of history very seriously, and any help you can give me in keeping my tone NPOV is greatly appreciated. --JereKrischel 04:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blount Report

I am the original author of the Blount Report entry on Wikipedia. Thanks for your helpful contributions, as I have not reviewed the page for a while. It is interesting that the page receives as much attention as it does - no one bothered to create one for a long time, well after the existence of the Morgan Report and "Republic of Hawaii" entries, whose author you have heard from already. It was as if...someone was trying to pretend it didn't exist. My interests aren't so parochial that I can keep an eye on the page every day, so I appreciate. If we can draw a critical mass of Hawaii-related contributors to these and similar pages, perhaps we'll achieve truly-NPOV and encyclopedic entries on these topics. Huangdi 06:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sir David's Long-beaked Echidna

This was a nice addition that you made. Do you have a citation for it? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't have a citation (yet) -- but will locate the paper describing the species. I work with conservation orgs and museums on biodiversity research in Papua, and this was information I got straight from Flannery himself prior to publishing the paper. That said, I will check to confirm. Arjuna 01:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed. It was described from a single (damaged) specimen collected in 1961. This is in the Flannery/Groves paper. Arjuna 01:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marine mammals of New Guinea

Would you be able to write up this section of Fauna of New Guinea? I have no sources for it, and don't even have a clue what could be up there (except for Dugongs). --liquidGhoul 08:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Western New Guinea

Thank you for your courteous and helpful response.

I think my main point was that the word "still" implies continuation of previous activity. c.f. "Are you still beating your wife?" makes the assumption that the person was definitely beating his wife at some stage, and the only question isw whether he has stopped. Similarly, to say that the assylum seekers claimed genocide is still taking place, implies that it is beyond doubt that genocide was taking place previously and the only question is whether or not it is continuing today. On this basis I removed the word "still". It is true that the assylum seekers claimed genocide was taking place. Ordinary Person 00:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fauna of New Guinea - Birds

Hello,

Can you named any important habitat that has been eliminated in New Guinea. I thought most of New Guinea's forests still intact ? especially in Western New Guinea. I know that Indonesian government have the so-called "transmigration" program to Papua. Also, do you know any birds species in New Guinea that is endangered now, affected directly by this conversion and elimination of forests? It's good to have New Guinea's update, since most of the time the western side is relatively closed to non-Indonesian.--Stavenn 12:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Aloha. Well, there are a couple of assumptions inherent in your question that are problematic. It is pretty difficult to define "important" habitat -- certainly (contrary to what you may have assumed) selective logging has been extensive in the north coast of the island (both PNG and Papua), in Bird's Head; there is also widespread forest conversion for agriculture (mainly oil palm) in other areas of both the mainland and other islands (ex. New Britain/New Ireland). So how important those areas are for widespread or restricted range species is really not known very well, but presumably habitat loss has some effect and not of the good variety. This is certainly the case under the standard species/area curve models. Second, habitat doesn't have to be eliminated to be less viable for certain species; degradation of the forest by logging etc. can certainly negatively impact important food resources available for those species.

As for whether there are any endangered birds, the answer is yes. WWF reports that "...the most widespread and serious threat to birds in PNG is loss of habitat. In particular from unsustainable commercial logging and conversion of primary rainforest to oil palm plantations in the lowlands, and from subsistence and cash crop agriculture where population density is high (such as the highland valleys). Papua New Guinea has one Critically Endangered, two Engangered, and 28 Vulnerable bird species listed in the IUCN Red Data Book." (http://www.worldwildlife.org/expeditions/newguinea/read_1.cfm) I can report authoritatively that the situation in regards to logging/agricultural conversion on the Papua side of the border is similar to the PNG side, but since it is much harder to carry out scientific surveys to ascertain the population status of bird (or other) species, more precise assessments are difficult. However, IUCN and Birdlife estimate that about 129 bird species in New Guinea, about 3/4 of which are endemics, are under some level of conservation threat.

Hope this answers your questions. Aloha. Arjuna 02:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Arjuna, thanks for the reply and explanation. About the intact forests, I didn't assumed (I shouldn't said "thought" on the previous message :)), it's from New Guinea-related books and browsing (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4688000.stm) about the recent big news from New Guinea. I didn't search for logging and other threats on the web. I know it happened in every forests, but I didn't know it already affected important birds habitat (Endemic Bird Areas by BirdLife International?) in New Guinea (it will in the future, but for now, compare to nearby Java, Sumatra or Borneo and other rainforests, New Guinea is relatively safe. This one I assumed). My mistake.

As for birds, all three endangered species mentioned above: Beck's Petrel, White-eyed Starling and Yellow-legged Pigeon are found in Solomon Islands, Bismarck Archipelago and Bougainville Island of Papua New Guinea, but not in New Guinea. If the article includes New Guinea's surrounding islands, the numbers need to be updated.

Since the threats (settlements, logging, road building, mining, hunting, introduced species, agriculture, pets, etc) are affected any wildlife, not only birds, is it better to put your edit on the section that includes all fauna?

Thank you for your response and help. Terimakasih--Stavenn 05:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Stavenn dan terima kasih atas balasanya. Here's another report you might be interested in: http://www.eia-international.org/cgi/reports/reports.cgi?t=template&a=93. You're quite right that the situation isn't as terrible (yet) for either side of NG as it is on Sumatra or Kalimantan -- but the lowland habitat is so degraded or destroyed in those places that it would indeed be sad to have to judge it based on that standard, no? Conservation International lists both of those (Jawa too for that matter) as "Hotspots" as opposed to New Guinea which is a "Wilderness Area (misleading term) that is still (relatively) intact but going fast. Basically, western Indonesia and Malaysia having largely been depleted of readily accessible timber, the companies are moving on further east to Papua, PNG, Solomon Islands, and the Amazon -- increasingly to satisfy the growing demand from China. The mountainous areas in NG have some degree of natural protection from logging and oil palm, for obvious reasons, and you are right that one of the main threats to vertebrates in the uplands is from over-hunting. I think it would be great if you had a list of which species are listed by IUCN or CITES as endangered or threatened -- I don't believe in being alarmist but rather having the most accurate data out there (which is depressing enough). I also agree with you that the discussion of the threats would be better in another section. If you are familiar with the Ecology of Indonesia book series, you may be interested to know that the last volume, "Ecology of Papua" will be coming out hopefully before the end of the year.... Aloha! Arjuna 05:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Arjuna, thank you again for the update and valuable infos. I really appreciated it. Btw, nice name :). Regards, Stavenn 03:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "right wing..."

I rolled that edit back as it is the type of wording that brings edit wars, particularly in this type of page. I hope you understand. Feel free to edit out any similarly-toned commentary as you find it.Kukini 01:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Such labels are NOT critical context. They are divisive and can be seen as QUITE POV. Kukini 01:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Quite clearly, I disagree. Hugh Hewitt does not have the name recognition of, say, the Dalai Lama, so some context is necessary. If you object to an accurate description of his POV, then how about just "talk radio host" -- which at least indicates that he comes from a particular (non-scholarly) kind of perspective. Arjuna 01:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

That is fine (regarding the talk show host). I actually agree with your political perspective here (see my userpage for hints to this end). But deleting the Rush quote, with citation is a bit overboard, and will likely draw fire in an edit war with those who see things differently. I leave you to it, although that was your third revert in 24 hours. Something you really should consider avoiding. Best, Kukini 01:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and appreciate your comments, although I still disagree with you on the Limbaugh quote as well. Limbaugh's comment was outside the mainstream and beyond the pale, and Wikipedia should not be a forum for presenting extremist propoganda points. Just because someone, even someone noteworthy, says something does not necessarily make it worth repeating. To take a reductio ad absurdum, if someone else comes along and blames issue X on "the Jews", that hardly merits giving such comments attention. Aloha. Arjuna 02:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Point well made. I believe I may have overreacted to you based on the amount of extreme reactions spurred by this upcoming dramatization. If you would consider helping me keep the page relatively neutral, I would greatly appreciate it. Kukini 03:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and I will. I am not prone to POV pushing (though I certainly have a POV) and strongly agree that articles should strive to be fair and as neutral as possible. Aloha. Arjuna 04:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mahalo

Hey Arjuna, thanks for the help with the Bayonet Constitution wording - you're right, "derisively" was npov, even if technically accurate. I think the reason why it matters to me is because of the common misunderstanding that the "Bayonet Constitution" was named so because it was signed by Kalakaua with a bayonet literally at his throat. The "Bayonet" was figurative, and I think the name often overshadows the real, substantive political struggle that was occuring at the time between William Gibson's faction, and local "conservatives" (for lack of a better term). Being clear about the origin of the nickname seems to me an important thing to note. Anyway, thanks again for your help, I appreciate the alternative perspective - it is helping move these articles forward. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 18:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tarsiers

May I ask why you had a problem with adding an External Links section, and specifically, had a problem with the particular link? Thanks. Arjuna 19:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The website is under construction. I found no information there. Come back later when you are done, but also read WP:COI and WP:EL. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It violates WP:EL and WP:COI. Leave it off. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The burden of proof is upon you to explain how the site "violates" [WP:EL] or [WP:COI] -- I have read them and can find no such conflict. Arjuna 20:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you the author (or primary contributor) to that site's creation? If so, then it violates WP:EL and WP:COI. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I have nothing to do with it, which one would be able to tell by noting that from my user page that I live in Hawaii, while the person who created the website is a professor in Singapore. Arjuna 19:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war

I reported the editwar on Tarsier at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Arjuna808 and User:UtherSRG reported by User:Ucucha (Result:). Ucucha 06:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asmat regency

The article you wrote, Asmat regency, is uncategorized. Please help improve it by adding it to one or more categories, so it may be associated with related articles. A stub marker or other template doesn't count - please put in an actual category in the article. Eli Falk 12:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Western New Guinea

Much of that stuff you removed is probably verifiable - although I agree totally with all your comments in your edit sums. I was intending to put those tags back in a few days. He is a problem editor - keeps rambling on about his personal views without providing citataions. WP:CIVIL prevents me commenting further if you know what i mean.

It would have been helpful if he'd provided page numbers and in-line cites. He's gone and 'retailiated' by throwing {{fact}} and {{cn}}Indonesia but in a way it is good thing. Ie, I enjoy the challenge and it can only help the article if those things are verified. So don't revert him in Indonesia!!! kind regards. Merbabu 12:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Planet Earth

It's airing tonight on Discovery, 8pm Eastern. Just thought I'd post this here to minimise the chance of you missing it. SheffieldSteel 18:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apology Resolution, Blount Report, etc.

Mahalo for your edits Arjuna808, I hope we can work more effectively together on some of the articles we've been disagreeing on. You have an important POV, which needs to be respected, but I think we can both do a better job if we work harder on finding good citations rather than simply copy-editing back and forth without some sort of compromise.

Do you think we could discuss for a while some possible compromises we could come to? In particular:

• It's awfully important that Blount flatly refused to take testimony from anti-royalists who volunteered. We really shouldn't redact that information.

• We really need to find some sort of agreement on the use of "alleged".

• We should be finding balance on articles not by removing sourced, and appropriate material, but by adding in balancing material.

• Do you have any citations about non-sovereignty activist supporters who allege that the U.S. was part of a conspiracy to overthrow the monarchy? You used the word "many", can you give a single citation, and maybe just note that citation directly?

Can we focus together on one particular issue you find concern with, and get to the root of the matter, before continuing to revert each other? I'm sure we can find a good compromise if we work together. --JereKrischel 03:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)