Talk:Henderson Island (Pitcairn Islands)

message: I removed what was the 2nd paragraph since it was a restating of the first paragraph and parts of it contradicted the first paragraph. Dr. Morbius (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed redundant paragraph 

message: I have removed mention of the island's only butterfly being endemic because Benton TG (1995) "Biodiversity and biogeography of Henderson Island’s insects" Biological journal of the Linnean Society, 56: 245-2.59 says"the butterfly Hypolimnas bolina collected by Tait and observed by Hateley (Holloway, 1990) and Paulay (personal communication) was collected." and this species seems to be widely distributed throughout the Pacific. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Butterfly

message: http://www.int-res.com/articles/esr2010/11/n011p047.pdf --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Archaeology

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Henderson Island (Pitcairn Islands). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141211081408/http://library.puc.edu/pitcairn/pitcairn/govt-history15.shtml to http://library.puc.edu/pitcairn/pitcairn/govt-history15.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070719142224/http://www.ukotcf.org/pdf/Henderson.pdf to http://www.ukotcf.org/pdf/henderson.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The brief mention of Robert Tomarchin in this article set me off on a google search, and I think I found enough RSes to support an article. Is anyone watching this page interested, or have any thoughts on this? 
*http://www.winthrop.dk/chimp.html (Used in this article and seemingly endorsed by a Pacific Union College's history department at https://library.puc.edu/pitcairn/pitcairn/monkey.shtml.)
*https://www.stltoday.com/news/archives/dec-the-day-the-zoo-s-mr-moke-was-kidnapped/article_997fb9a7-507b-53b1-8896-21fb3969f854.html#1
*https://www.ebay.com/itm/1960-Press-Photo-Mr-Robert-Tomarchin-get-back-his-chimpanzee-from-St-Louis-Zoo (Not an RS, but an Ebay listing for a print of a newspaper clipping; more like evidence of an RS.)
*https://books.google.com/books?id=_qYb8TcQEH8C&pg=PA190&lpg=PA190&dq=Robert+Tomarchin&source=bl&ots=lP2J3oLhl7&sig=uKyDbLRi3TNz9HVyqnoPj6bB6KM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjg4qjExdPbAhWLt1MKHR7yBqkQ6AEIkgEwGQ#v=onepage&q=Robert%20Tomarchin&f=false
*https://digitalscholarship.utsc.utoronto.ca/islandora/object/animalempire%3A657
There are more, but there's no point putting them here, as the only purpose is to let any readers here know that there are sources to use. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert Tomarchin 

message: Somebody added a mention of the plastic pollution to the lede, so I added prehistoric human predation, introduced plant species and introduced Pacific rat to the lede also, because I don't see the point of mentioning just one of the significant human impacts. 
But I'd prefer to remove them all from the lede and leave the lede saying just that "It is one of the world's last two raised coral atolls whose ecosystems remain relatively unaffected by human contact", and leave the details of human impact to the body of the article. Despite these mentioned human impacts, the island's ecosystems are (compared to most other raised coral atolls) still relatively untouched by human contact. No nuclear testing, no strip mining of guano, no holiday resorts, etc. 
If no one objects, I'll trim it in a few days. 175.38.215.178 (talk) 05:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human impact in the lede 

message: I'm unsure about the importance or prominence of the skeleton story. The prehistoric Hendersonians used caves and rock shelters at the east end of the north beach and the north end of the east beach to dispose of their dead, and it turns out these skeletons were simply a part of that practice. That there was a series of conjectures and mistaken identifications over the years doesn't seem very interesting to me. 
If anyone's attached to it, let me know, otherwise I'll delete it or trim it in due course. --175.38.215.178 (talk) 07:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Undone. A better step would be to add text, with sources, to back your view of history. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The skeletons 

message: On 16 August 2020 an IP editor added the following to ==History==:
and this to ==Plastic debris==:
I reverted the addition to ==History==, with the edit note  It describes a night spent on the east beach by five expeditioners huddled around a campfire after their dinghi capsized. The source is a nicely-written anecdote but it is not history. It's not three mariners spending three months on the border of starvation, it's not a millionaire trying to flatten the island and the island's designation as a World Heritage Site, it's not a population of Polynesians occupying the island for 600 years, it's not a wooden sailing ship first sighting the island in 17th C, it's not the naming of the island or it's claiming for the British crown, etc. It's a handful of expiditioners spending the night around a campfire with their support ship parked on the other side of the reef. 
User:Roger 8 Roger restored it with the edit summary:  and added this comment to ==The skeletons== above - although that section discusses a different edit.
I've never read a guideline or policy that says do not remove referenced text - and I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist. Some of the best work on enWP involves the removal of irrelevant, trivial or false sourced text. That is, Roger reverted me with no good reason. So I removed the text again with the edit summary 
Roger restored the story with this edit summary: 
Roger, can you please make a sound argument for the inclusion of this trivia? --175.38.215.178 (talk) 23:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is good - it covers many issues, not just the night spent on the beach. We do not revert sources like that without good reason. That source was also used further down and it could be argued that it better fits down there in the pollution section, but the simple solution to the mention in the history section is to change the wording, or to remove the sentence about the night on the beach. You are taking a very narrow approach to this, deleting a good source because it is used to back one (amoungst two or three) sentence that might be 'trivial'. Reword the text, don't delete it and the source. To take such a cavalier approach borders on being disruptive in my view. Incidentally, your edit summery was not clear - it did not mention the same source was used further down, meaning it it not been deleted from the article. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: A night around a campfire on the east beach