Talk:Palila

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Birds (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Palila is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not substitute this template.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Hawaii (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hawaii on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Animal rights[edit]

From the article:

The palila was the first animal to have a 9th circuit federal case cited in its own name. Prior to Palila v. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources 852 F.2d 1106 (U.S. 1988), cases were cited under the represented party e.g. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992), this citing error opened a door for environmental protection agencies who in prior years had lost on issue of standing, e.g. Lujan. As the Circuit Court Justices so aptly realized, the fact that this bird had “winged itself into court” represented a major stepping stone for animal rights activists.

Firstly, claiming that this is a citing error is questionable. It seems unlikely to me that the judges or lawyers involved would do this accidentally. According to The New York Times the judge explicitly ruled that the species had standing.

Secondly, claiming that this was some sort of victory for animal rights activists is highly questionable. This case was about a species, whereas animal rights activists believe that animals have individual rights. The distinction between a species and an individual is critical here and there's no evidence that I can see that this ruling granted or extended legal rights to any individual bird.

Unless some references can be found for these two controversial claims I will remove them from the article. Pburka (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)