Talk:Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
To-do list for Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Expand: The article, creating a section on the species and ecology of the area.

Contents

[edit] Future event

I had put up a {{future}} tag and worked on tenses. Bush's announcement hasn't happened yet according to http://www.whitehouse.gov/, though the Ocean Conservancy press release uses past tense. Looks like Ocean Conservancy released their press release early and all the media sources are mixing up their tenses as well. - BT 19:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I heard the announcement is supposed to have happened at 2pm eastern time -- I presume the website is slow to post. Let's not forget to add a link to the Federal Register announcement, once it gets posted. — Eoghanacht talk 19:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] map

Can we just have a map of Hawaai? My first impression was that it was located in Mexico! Borisblue 21:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, we really could use a specialized map that doesn't include the rest of the country... T. S. Rice 00:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a NOAA map which could be used or adapted, since it's a U.S. gov document. Eluchil404 00:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I have replaced the uninformative US locator map image with another NOAA image (not the one cited above) that provides a much more useful diagram of the preserve. This one not only shows the shape of the preserve, but also gives the island and atoll names, from Kure and Midway through the better-known Hawaiian Islands. Combined with the cited image that locates the preserve on the globe, readers can see exactly where the NWHINM is and what it encompasses. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
In keeping with other articles that use a standard map generally for all protected areas, I think we can move the map to another location if the article expands and return the loc_map we use normally--MONGO 03:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The loc map is utterly useless. A map is supposed to show where something is. The inset mechanism used by the standard locator map of the U.S. not only makes Hawaii look like it's in an unnamed lake in Mexico, but it doesn't even show the territory of the NWHI preserve, which starts northwest of the visible island chain. Illogical adherence to informal standards is a poor substitute for illustration. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not illogical. It happens to be the standard used in every protected area project we do. Admittedly, the loc_map does not well delineate the region northwest of Hawaii...maybe you need to look at WP:CIVIL.--MONGO 03:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you took offense, MONGO, but it is manifestly illogical to argue that we should use a map to show something that does not appear on the map. The phrase "utterly useless" is also an accurate assessment of such a map. I did not make any statements about your character or that of any other editor. My complaint was about the complete lack of merit to the argument that we should follow a standard that not only fails to provide useful information, but actively misleads the reader. If you can point to an official Wikipedia policy that says we need a U.S. locator map in this article, please do so. (Even if you could, I would counter such a "standard" with the fifth pillar of Wikipedia, which suggest we not follow rules for the sake of following rules.) In the meantime, if you can find a locator map that includes the subject of the article — in its actual position, not confusingly relocated to fit inside an unnecessary political diagram — I will support its inclusion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Review the top of this page and the banner that this is part of the protected areas wikiproject...Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas...all National Monuments have the same infobox. The map you added may or may not be the boundaries of the new monument anyway, so it a nutshell, it may be misleading. I prefer to replace the loc-map and put the dot in the northwestmost spot on the Hawaii islands inset and move this map out of the infobox back into the body of the article.--MONGO 08:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Exception to the rule includes...Virgin Islands Coral Reef National Monument so lets find a map that doesn't delineate it as a "reserve", just the islands themselfs and we can encircle the boubdaries and upload a correctly attributed map.--MONGO 08:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that we should have a map that doesn't say "reserve", but as I point out below, so far it seems that the Reserve and the Monument are completely coincidental, right down to the unincluded area around Midway. Until we get such a map, this image is the most accurate one we have thus far. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The US locator map could be usefully replaced with a Pacific Ocean view. The monument is large enough to show up on one, too. --Dhartung | Talk 07:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Note that Image:NWHI Reserve.jpg in the infobox is not of the National Monument but of the Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve that is incorporated into the Monument and therefore misleading. Hopefully NOAA has the actual map coming out soon. - BT 03:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
You raise a good point, BanyanTree. However, nothing I've read in the press release and other documents about the Preserve or the Monument seem to make a sourceable distinction between the two. Also, a Memorandum of Agreement between Hawaii and the U.S. Department of Interior from 2000 states that NOAA "is proposing to designate the Reserve as a national marine sanctuary, pursuant to the National Marine Sanctuaries Act", suggesting that this monument is the end result of making the Reserve the Monument. I invite any clarifying information that anyone can dig up. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... just some clarifying info on the Reserve - http://hawaiireef.noaa.gov/PDFs/SOR.pdf states that it encompasses 134,576 square miles. It seems that all of the dry land, minus Midway and Kure, was in the Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge with 1,766 acres (2.75 sq miles) on dry land and 610,148 submerged acres (953 sq miles). NOAA states the monument is "nearly 140,000 square miles", which is ballpark what we get. I'm happy with the explanation that Image:NWHI Reserve.jpg shows the correct external borders and doesn't include the little exclusion areas for the Refuge areas around the dry spots, so is an accurate represenation of the Monument. - BT 14:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The map Image:NWHI Reserve.jpg is the most informative one that I've seen proposed. I agree that whatever we choose, the standard map is not helpful. I see no benefit to consistency for consistency's sake - the fact that the standard map is used in all the other related infoboxes is not rellevant if the map is not informative here. We are building an encyclopedia and informative is more important than consistent. Johntex\talk 15:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I've replaced the jpeg image uploaded by Jeffq with a more suitable .png image which is preferred for maps. The png map doesn't have the wording "reserve" in it, since this is no longer a reserve, obviously. I added a caption to explain the image as well. The wikiproject for protected areas uses a standard infobox map that is vague for areas outside the continental U.S. In some cases, as I linked earlier, we have used more specific maps. Looking over random featured articles that the protected areas project has produced, such as Yellowstone, Glacier, etc. you'll see that the map in the infobox is the same basic loc_map, BUT, as I mentioned, there is a much higher resolution map later in the article. That is what I meant when I stated that if the article expands, we can move the more specific map to another location. By that time, maybe the Feds will produce a new and accurate map that we can use anyway.--MONGO 19:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Awesome! Looks great! Johntex\talk 19:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, MONGO. I should have made it a PNG myself. I appreciate your fixing the misleading caption, too. I believe your carefully worded "approximate boundary" strikes the right note for our current sourced information. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
In light of the fact that the loc_map simply does not delineate where this monument is, I see no reason we can't keep what we have...and later, maybe the Feds will have one with more detail we can put elsewhere. I did see on the NOAA website that they have island/shoal specific maps...maybe those would be good for some subarticles. Happy editing!--MONGO 00:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
As much as I am a fan of consistency for the Infobox, the general map does not necessarily work everywhere -- I have used other maps for protected areas in U.S. territories not on the general map. I added the general one here originally just as a starting point, even if only the southeast corner of the area was on the Hawaii inset. I have no objection continuing with a version of the current boundary map. — Eoghanacht talk 14:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Largest?

Isn't the area south of the Antarctic circle a protected area? 217.33.200.148 11:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  • That's from an international treaty, not due to US law and it's not primarily a marine area, as I understand it. Rlevse 11:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Nope, this one is the largest and Bush signed it into law; stop trying to steal his thunder. Haizum 00:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monument vs. Sanctuary

An explaanation of the difference would be helpful, especially since the links appear to be redirects to the same article which doesn't explain it either. Septentrionalis 13:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Minor glitch:The link to the Casper paper isn't working; if this is an AP story, there should be better links to it. Septentrionalis
I replaced it with a copy at the Washington Post. Footnotes with titles and attribution are a beautiful thing for countering link decay. Also, someone added an extended quote for the difference you mention in the original post. - BT 14:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
This is a tricky point. A marine sanctuary would have been governed by the 2000 law, but a national monument is governed by an executive order (technically, this presidential proclamation), which is effectively the same as a law. The proclamation is quite strict about prohibited activities (it's almost a closed area), but also allows the Secretary of Commerce a role in regulating the monument, which hasn't been widely reported. In effect, the President and his successors could just rewrite the regulations at any time to permit an economic activity, which I don't think they would be able to do for a marine sanctuary. --Dhartung | Talk 17:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think that is correct. It stands to reason that what can be done by Presidential fiat may be undone by Presidential fiat. Johntex\talk 19:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, if you recall, the monuments that were declared by Bill Clinton were something that Western politicians were urging President Bush to undeclare very early in his first term. They also tried to get Congress to overturn them, which required (I think) a supermajority. --Dhartung | Talk 20:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Tha't not completely accurate. The role of the Commerce Dept is limited administration by NOAA which is part of Commerce. The restrictions of use are quite significant as to not make it possible for a "commerce" Commerce dept official to just say "OK let's make some money on this now" as you seem to be impling. Also, monuments created under the Antiquities Act cannot be undone by Executive Order, only by a supermajority in Congress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.175.103 (talk • contribs)
I don't fully share your confidence; legal opinions differ on whether a monument designation may be modified by a president, and frankly, there is no case law whatsoever. It's never been litigated. Any president can in principle overturn an Executive Order with a new EO; it's done all the time. (Look at the history of the CIA assassination ban.) Of course Congress may also overturn an EO; they rarely do so in cases of foreign or military policy, but have done so in the case of monument designations. But at least then you have to convince a majority of Congressmen and Senators of the idea. Here's a paper on some of the legal concerns about using the Antiquities Act. Both of these papers are from the Congressional Research Service, thus are presumably as objective as possible. --Dhartung | Talk 06:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the history of National Monuments being overturned by either newer Presidents or by Congress. What I do know is that when Republicans create National Monuments, there is usually little objection from the left since the conservatives are less likely to support parks and protected areas. In this example, there was an almost decades long discussion involving many parties as to what to do with the reserve, and most agreed that enhanced protection status was best. One problem that does happen when Presidents create National Monuments is that the agency charged with new mandates and enhanced protection requirements do not get the funding neded to properly maintain the newly set aside area as Congress has not appropriated a budget to do so. Since this was already a reserve, perhaps the funding to meet the new enhancements are mostly in place. I also believe the remoteness and difficulty in getting to these islands will help to lessen the impact of any increased visitation that seems to naturally occur whenever something new is protected.--MONGO 10:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Size comparison

Rmhermen, sorry if it seems like I'm doing a simple revert to your edit. I meant to edit earlier, as I thought listing both California and Montana to be a little excessive, considering that we also have two other size comparisions. As my edit description notes, I think that Montana is closer in size, so it is possibly a more telling comparison. I've noticed before for other geography articles on Wikipedia (and elsewhere) that California is often used as a comparison for size, whether or not it is actually correct (hey, it just sounds better to compare it California (I guess)). Anyway, I hope this is minor; I just wanted to explain the edit so as not create the wrong impression, as you are also an administrator. Cheers Ufwuct 00:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to go along either way. My preference though, is to leave both Montana and California in. As you say, Montana is the better fit, while California is a frequently used comparison. The reason I think leaving California in is that international readers may be more familiar with California and they may have an intuitive sense of roughly how big it is, which they may not for Montana. Johntex\talk 15:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
This sentence is just to long and California is the more recognizable comparision. Rmhermen 03:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I prefer we leave them both in. If we take one out, it should surely be California though, since Montana is a much closer fit. Johntex\talk 03:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] State of Hawaii?

Are these islands part of the state of Hawaii? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.123.232.156 (talk • contribs)

All except Midway Atoll, which is an unincorporated territory administered by the Fish & Wildlife Service as part of the United States Minor Outlying Islands. Geographically, however, it is part of the Hawaiian island chain. --Dhartung | Talk 18:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Is Midway in in the new Monument or not? Dhartung, there is one correction needed to be made in your comment. The US Minor Outlying Islands do not exist, except on paper. - Thanks, Hoshie | 07:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Somebody else already fixed that, and I clarified the other point. --Dhartung | Talk 20:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hawaiian naming citation

The citation (number 1) gives no indication that Hawaiians will vote on a native Hawaiian name for the new monument. Unless I completely passed over it, though I read over it a few times. --67.114.233.162 20:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The nation's newest national monument, which will be given a native Hawaiian name based on suggestions from state residents... is the second sentence. [1] --Dhartung | Talk 20:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible POV-pushing

I'm concerned about a series of edits made by an IP address that removed comments cited to a variety of sources, and replaced them with language favorable to and/or supportive of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council:

Some of these edits may well be worth including, but some of the deleted, sourced material should certainly be brought back into the article. I have no quarrel with the WPRFMC presenting another side of the argument, but they should not removed criticism in the process. --Dhartung | Talk 07:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This article needs some copy editing -- the use of "selective information" that subtly pushes a pro-fishing POV is distorting some facts. For example, describing the Pew Charitable Trusts as "an institution which had advocated strongly for the elimination of commercial fishing" is pretty unfair and simplistic as they certainly are about a lot more than that. And it may be the case that NMFS concluded that "commercial bottomfish and pelagic fishing as well as recreational catch-and-keep and catch-and-release fishing were also deemed compatible to the goals and objectives of the proposed NWHI National Marine Sanctuary" is fair enough, but the opposing scientific view (as well as public consensus against fishing) is not represented. I'm not anti-fishing, but the article as written is one-sided. I don't have time to address it right now, but am marking it as an issue. Arjuna 20:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. As it was rewritten, as far as I can tell by WPRFMC representatives, it's as if the fishing industry itself suddenly came up with the idea of protecting the place, which I find a little hard to believe. The truth is closer to fighting tooth and nail to protect as little of it as possible, and protecting some of it unofficially as a stopgap to prevent federal regulation (similar to the way the MPAA ratings were started). I'm not sure what to expect next -- Chevron taking credit for starting the national parks? --Dhartung | Talk 04:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge into this article

I'm almost sure that when the national monument was created it superceded the National Wildlife Refuge, as having both would be redundant. As such, the it should be merged here. SeanMD80talk | contribs 01:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)