Talk:Whale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is supported by the WikiProject on Marine Biology, which collaborates on marine biology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details. B This article has been Assessed as B-Class on its quality.

Whale is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

	This article is part of WikiProject Cetaceans, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use cetaceans resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance within WikiProject Cetaceans.
Cetaceans To do: Here are some tasks you can do, as organized by the Cetaceans WikiProject. If you are interested sign up on the project page: Copyedit/Formatting: Beaked whale Expand: Hector's Beaked Whale, Hector's Beaked Whale, Ginkgo-toothed Beaked Whale, Shepherd's Beaked Whale, Archaeoceti, Cumberland Sound Beluga, Blubber, Chinese River Dolphin, Humpback dolphin Requests: List of extinct cetaceans Stubs: Callosity, Cephalorhynchus Images: Images of porpoises are wanted. Featured/Good article candidates: Sei Whale Patrol: Look through the Category:Cetaceans for recent changes Collaboration of the Month: List of cetaceans Other: See the project page.

Contents 1 Before you start 2 Baleen Whales 3 Comment 4 Ambergris? 5 Whale songs? 6 Whale band 7 Disambiguation Page 8 Intro 9 External links 10 New Evolution of Ceteceans Page 11 Lists 12 Bible 13 Whale intelligence 14 Sleeping 15 Citations!!! 16 Whale predators 17 Whale Size 18 Acoustic whatt??? 19 frequent random vandalism 20 Anatomy of the ear

[edit] Before you start

I wonder if this works. If your reading this than i guess it does. Dont trust this website. Anyone can edit the information and what you may be using for your MAJOR report might be a pack of lies. Im not saying whoever made the website is bad its just having people be able edit the info is bad...

See here :-) And you should never use an encyclopedia as a source for a major report, you should use it as a starting point to give you a general view and some good sources that you can use for the actual report. Skittle 22:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baleen Whales

The Whale page seemed to be using "whale" to mean the suborder Mysticeti, baleen whales. I've rephrased to make clear that toothed whales exist, but this runs us into a problem: the divisions in English, of whale/dolphin/porpoise, don't match current taxonomy.

The other problem is that cetacean taxonomy seems to be confused, to put it mildly. cetacea.org doesn't agree with Walker's Mammals of the World (http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/walkers_mammals_of_the_world/cetacea/cetacea.html), which goes into more detail and admits the difficulties. From cetacea.org I can't even figure out which genera they're including in which families.

If anyone here knows more about cetacean taxonomy than I do (not hard), please take a look at this. Vicki Rosenzweig 09:14 Aug 17, 2002 (PDT)

NB note to new readers, this comment refers to a long out-of-date version of this page. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

that bone is not useless it is connected to muscles to help it have sex and give brith

Please read vestigial structure. You appear to be attempting to start general discussion, rather than improve the article by raising a specific way in which the article can be improved. This page is not for general discussion. Skittle 10:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

"Whales are drinking all our water and eating our sailors." - Maddox

THAT'S NOT TRUE!61.230.72.211 01:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ambergris?

Hunted for ambergris? I thought the stuff was found floating. -phma

Amber is a gemstone derived from pine resin, and is sometimes found floating; ambergris is a different substance, and is found inside whales. Vicki Rosenzweig

Well, according to the ambergris article it is found floating, and when it's found in the whale it stinks. -phma

According to dictonary.com: "A waxy grayish substance formed in the intestines of sperm whales and found floating at sea or washed ashore." -- Zoe

[edit] Whale songs?

Why is there nothing about Whale songs? (not meaning to anthropomorphize the behavior either) The sounds made by whales are pretty well known and an interesting area of study. older≠wiser 16:10, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi Bkonrad, I had a look at the article on 'cattle', and the same thing: It was nothing about the cow song. The sounds made by cattle are pretty well known and an interesting area of study, too. --Arnejohs 18:52, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, if you know of any serious scientific research being done on cattle sounds, then by all means add them to that article. I'm not aware of any and think you're just trying to make a wisecrack, although I feel you may actually be trying to insinuate that research into whale sounds is somehow not worthwhile to mention. older≠wiser 19:08, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about the cheeky comment, but yes: It can be disputed how serious the scientific research on 'whale songs' is. Only the choice of the term ?song? indicates a certain interpretation. The comparison of cattle is however not a coincidence, fin whales and cattle are related. The large whales are ruminants or have been (e.g. indicated by several stomachs). But there is a big difference though: Whale sound is only obtained through hydrophones? --Arnejohs 19:40, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Ah yes, I'm sure pro-whale hunting advocates are keen to discredit any research that could be used to show that whales might be intelligent and sensitive creatures. I guess that's a matter of POV. Yes "song" does have certain implications and certainly some persons go too far in anthropomorphizing and romanticizing the "inner life" of whales. Nonethless, the sounds are commonly referred to as songs (indeed, some have used to sounds to create musical compositions--although of course we can only speculate about what the whales might make of such compositions). And yet, research into animal communications is a serious topic and worth mentioning. older≠wiser 22:00, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Hmm.. is it anthropomorphizing to talk about birds' songs?

I propose putting content about whale songs directly into the species' articles. Humpback whale should fit best, as analyses of their vocalization revealed stunning characteristics. (A small note already exists on the Baleen whale page under behaviour section. --Borys 12:27, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

I plan to do a stand-alone article that would be linked to from several places because there is a lot in common, even though the Humpbacks are the most complex. I think Arnejohs comments show that he is not appreciative of the fact that sight and smell, two extremely important mammalian senses, don't work that well underwater. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Well I made a start at whale song. Comments welcome. But I did realize you are quite right... the topic is too big to put all information about all species in one article... so there is plenty more to be added to individual species articles. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Whale band

There is a band called Whale too. The were signed to Hut Recordings once--Onefool 00:51, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation Page

Is it a good idea to make a disambiguation-page, or will a "See Also"-link suffice? By the way, there's some backgroundinfo on the band "Whale" at Yahoo!.

[edit] Intro

The introduction tells about the ambiguities of the term whale, but nothing is said about which definition is adapted here. I suggest including all cetaceans. It avoids the pilot whale problem, and otherwise most content would have to be duplicated or moved to the cetacea article (which contains only the taxonomy). Also the links would have to be changed (at least the German and Polish ones lead to articles about all cetaceans). So, if nobody protests, I will add this to the intro (similar as in dolphins). --Borys 12:39, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

I think the reason we are not told what definition is adopted here is because no definition is in fact adopted! If pushed for a definition I think most scientists would say a whale is a cetacean that is not a porpoise or a dolphin (and where a dolphin is defined as a member of Delphinidae or the river dolphins). I am not certain what exactly what you are suggesting, but it would be misleading to equate "whales" with "cetaceans" in the intro. Better to simple write "these physical properties are also true of dolphins" where appropriate. I am quite comfortable with having the bulk of the information at dolphin and whale because that is where people will look for information. People with the sufficient prior knowledge to get to cetacea will also get to whale and dolphin. Everyone is happy, even if there is a small amount of duplication between the whale and dolphin articles, that what be an occasion where redundancy is useful. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Dividing cetaceans exclusively into whales and dolphins as you describe is a definition I can work with. Consequently, I will have to remove the dolphin-specific info from this article. Also, the problem remains what to do with the cetacea article: copy the content about common characteristics there, or leave it with only taxonomical info?
I guess this is a general problem with biological articles: How much content do you put into the upper catagory articles, how much into the special? Are there any suggestions what is considered a good style? --Borys 20:09, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Although it claims to be "a non-commercial website", http://www.cetacea.org/ hosts the CetaceaShop, surely having commercial interests in being represented at WikipediA. The information provided is also filled up with strong POVs, like:

"Countries like Japan and Norway, unable to justify the cull of whales except as part of tradition, have pulled the wool over the world's eyes and persuaded the International Whaling Commission to allow them to continue their slaughter as part of research. The Japanese claim that the whales they kill are scientifically studied to enable mankind to understand more about them. However, the meat from these 'scientifically studied' whales somehow finds its way onto the supermarket shelf - and is sold for as little as £100/lb.

The same can be said for dolphins. Yes, dolphins - like Flipper, like Keiko from Free Willy, like Darwin from SeaQuest DSV. These playful, funloving creatures are also slaughtered in much the same way, with their meat appearing beside the whales', priced at £70/lb. However, it is not with harpoons that dolphins are caught. They are tricked into the shallows of coves, and - when coming to greet the humans who would play with them - are instead met with a hook which is sliced into their side."

Therefore I have deleted the reference to www.cetacea.org.

Arnejohs 04:47, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Since when is there a requirement that external links be either non- commercial or NPOV? Andy Mabbett 06:16, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There are of course no NPOV requirements on external links. But here the other links are labelled according to their POVs, while the cetacean.org site was not. Well, it could be labelled as the two others, but in this case it also showed to be a commercial site. I thought it was a common understanding to avoid promotions and advertisements in Wikipedia. Am I wrong? --- Arnejohs 06:24, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

At a minimum we must label strongly POV external links, especially if their reason for existence is campaigning (e.g. as we do with Greenpeace and the HNA). Given the quote that you made, I think it would be worth giving cetacea.org a tag of something like "Cetacea.org has good factual information on the biology and life history of whales. However it also has an anti-whaling stance." As for commercial links, this is not something that tends to be labelled as so many sites are commercial that we would drown in the noise. Singling out cetacea.org may not be a great idea, although a change in general policy would be worth at least discussing. Pcb21| Pete 10:06, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That site is not about whales alone, but about cetaceans in general. It's not topic-specific. It's like adding a site about the US to an article on Michigan. --Menchi 06:45, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that's a reasonable objection. If a site about United States had lots of good information about Michigan, then we might link there from Michigan. Having said that, those links have been there a long time since the time when our coverage is much poorer than it is now - these days our coverage is probably nearly as good as cetacea.org's except for pictures. Pcb21| Pete 10:06, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] New Evolution of Ceteceans Page

The "Evolution of Whales" section is really about evolution of cetaceans, as the common ancestor of the cetaceans was the one who entered the water. Would it be agreeable to create a new article evolution of cetaceans, and link to this new article (along with short one-sentence summaries) from whale, dolphin, porpoise and cetacea? AxelBoldt 10:37, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. :) The Singing Badger 13:36, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Lists

I added a list of whales

68.169.113.246 Talk to me, 68.169.113.246 My contributions

[edit] Bible

The Bible seems to mention whales four times: Genesis 1:21 "And God created great whales" Surprised, I've checked in my own but after reading 3 times, no traces of whales, can someone help me to find one? more clear, Ididn't find hale in my bible of jerusalem..;jonathaneo in fr wikipedia

As it says in the article, you have to look in the King James Version of the Bible to find the whales. Gdr 09:48:09, 2005-08-12 (UTC)

The Book of Jonah (in the King James and some other translations) does not use the word "whale" at all, referring throughout to a "fish" or a "great fish": "Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights." (Jonah 1:17). This detail was used to dramatic effect in Clarence Darrow's cross-examination of fundamentalist William Jennings Bryan in the 1925 Scopes Trial, as depicted in the drama "Inherit the Wind" by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee.

please post arguments to already posted information on the discussion page

[edit] Whale intelligence

• I came here to read about whale intelligence and am disappointed to find that this question rates not a mention.
• Also, if dolphins are not whales, why do we have a paragraph about the conservation status of river dolphins at this article? Adam 15:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Cetacean intelligence is the article to see. I will link to that from here.
• Good point - I will clear up. Pcb21| Pete 07:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cetacean intelligence is entirely about dolphins. I guessI will have to write the answer to my own question (again). Adam 08:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No-one's making you Adam! But feel free... :) Pcb21| Pete 16:05, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have had a go. Adam 23:35, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This effort reads a lot like original work. If you have found sources about whale intelligence please summarise and cite them, rather than creating original arguments. 10 August 2005.

Pardon me for knowing something about the subject. I will try to be less knowledgeable in future. Adam 23:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

To the original commenter, they are not original arguments - they are the arguments typically made by those who believe the whale-huggers have invented a fairy story about really clever whales. As such it probably biased to the whaler's point of view. Pcb21| Pete 08:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I am opposed to whaling, but not on the grounds of whale intelligence. Adam 08:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

That wasn't my point at all. You're being knowledgable, but you are also creating original arguments that appear to defend a particular view, without having cited any sources. Without reference to the truth or otherwise of what you wrote, the advice about original research should help you to restructure what you've written to fit with what Wikipedia is about. 16 August 2005.

As I said, they're not original arguments. They may not cite sources, but they are not original arguments. Pcb21| Pete 07:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay. The points may not be original, but they read as though they are, partly because of the length and the detail given to the arguments. To change the balance of the article you could - 1. shorten this part of the article; it is disproportionately long, 2. give references: "This has led some to argue that...". Who has it lead to argue that, where? I like the contribution, but don't know enough about the subject to tackle the section myself. 16 August 2005.

This rule seems to be designed to exclude people who actually know something about the subject they are writing about. I can't source my statements about the laws of natural selection, any more than I can source my statement that the earth goes round the run. This is just stuff I know. Perhaps I should leave this to someone who has to look up elementary facts of biology. Adam 07:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

And please sign your contributions. Adam 07:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

It is very possible to cite a scientific source refering to the earth going 'round the sun. The reason for having people cite sources is so they can be verified. Jenzwick 19:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)jenzwick

I removed the following: "Some claim that whales are more intelligent than humans. " Who are these people? Such an outlandish statement certainly deserves some kind of citation.Sixtus LXVI 21:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Removed another "whales are smarter than people" comment. Specifically, I removed the following:

"Some have claimed that whales can do most or all of these things, at a level equal to, or superior to, humans."

The things in question include:

"the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience."

Once again, who, specifically, are the people who claim this? Not to sound like a broken record, but ridiculous claims like this really ought to be cited. Sixtus LXVI 17:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sleeping

The Behaviour section says, among others:

"Because of their environment (and unlike many animals), whales are conscious breathers: They have to decide when to breathe. So how do they sleep? All mammals sleep, and so do whales, but they cannot afford to fall unconscious state for too long, since they need to be conscious in order to breathe."

Am I mistaken in assuming that humans are conscious breathers too? While it's true that when we're unconscious we need external aid in breathing, we can breathe all right when we're asleep... Can someone confirm or explain? --Gutza ^{T T+} 16:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you are mistaken—somewhat. Humans and most animals breath unconsciously. We can temporarily override the unconscious stimulation of the muscles of respiration (mainly the diaphragm), although if one holds his breath for too long, unconscious control will force a breath. While sleeping, or even unconscious, we continue to breathe. And virtually all breaths we take are involuntary. This is not true for whales; every breath is a conscious decision. A suicidal whale or one with unusual brain physiology could just swim along, refuse to surface and to breathe, and therefore die (of course, any that did so would be unlikely to produce descendants). However, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a human to kill himself in this manner. Incidentally, there is a condition, called Ondine's curse if I recall correctly, in which this automatic control is damaged, and people must consciously take each breath; if such a patient (untreated) falls asleep, he will die. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I understand the distinction between completely voluntary breathing and the human "override mode" of the default "automatic" breathing. However, I have a couple of objections to your explanation: (1) when truly unconscious (e.g. during surgery), humans do need external help to breathe; and (2) it's not at all difficult to commit suicide in the manner you proposed for whales -- remember, you're underwater, the thing is called drowning! :-)

My objection to the way the article text is formulated is making it more clear whether the actual issue is (as I secretly expect) more related to the fact that sleeping while breathing and swimming poses a serious threat of drowning, or whether the problem is indeed the fact that whales can't breathe while asleep (has anyone really checked this? I'm imagining this huge whale in a tiny bed, surrounded by a choir of scientists singing lullabies to make it sleep...), or even whether the two issues are interwoven, whereas the threat of drowning has generated the evolutionary solution of making whales unable to breathe while sleeping in order to prevent them from dying in a most ridiculous fashion. --Gutza ^{T T+} 08:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

A couple of points - you drown when you (involuntarily) take a breath underwater, filling your lungs with water and killing you.

Whales die due to lack of oxygen to the brain and body through not breathing because of their inability to get to the surface due to illness or old-age.

Also whales do "sleep" but only half their brain at a time. Scientists are able to do EEG scans on whales and they are very different ECGs to humans. Basically much of the time one half a whale brain will be doing nothing much at all (it is effectively asleep). Then it will switch to the other half. Other times, when it needs to feed, communicate or move quickly, both halves will be active. In humans, the whole brain is very active when awake, and only somewhat active when asleep. Pcb21| Pete

Yes, I got the part with the half-brain-sleeping-half-brain-awake, that's not the issue -- and BTW, I'm not even close to contesting that. But if I understand correctly what you're saying, it seems like whales never drown, period; they may die because of lack of oxygen, but they never actually breathe water in. If that's the case, then this information should make it in the article explicitly -- it would clarify a lot of the issues. --Gutza ^{T T+} 14:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Your persistence has paid off, Gutza :) I set off to find a copper-bottomed reference that stated whether or not, when faced with their final choice, whales choose to drown asphyixiate or drown. I can't find one that makes an explicit statement. I am happy for you to elaborate in the article to that effect unless someone has a reference. Pcb21| Pete 17:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I can't edit the article based on lack of information... :-) The information is probably available out there somewhere, we just need to wait. --Gutza ^{T T+} 12:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Citations!!!

Towards the end of the article, there is a sentence that reads Because of their learning ability, they are also used by the military for marine warfare. Ummm...I may be out of the loop a bit, but I wasn't aware that this was a "publicly recognized piece of common knowledge." Sorry for the redundancy see, but, at least, if making these claims, please provide a citation. Kingerik 03:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I can't see such a sentence. Adam 05:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

For our future reference on the topic of military dolphins

PBS documentary on the topic : http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/whales/etc/navycron.html

"Official" .mil site on the topic: www.spawar.navy.mil/sandiego/technology/mammals/

Some myth debunking following Hurricane Katrina - http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1577753,00.html

The web is full of this stuff. Pcb21| Pete 14:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Whale predators

"When seals are not available they will prey upon young walrus and beluga whale, narwhal," - from a WWF link, but Google will find many others. Orcas also attack great whales, especially their calves. They are said to enjoy whale tongue. Sharks also attack whales, and there are many sightings of whales with bites in flippers and flukes.

[edit] Whale Size

Several dinosaurs, particular of the suborder Sauropodomorpha, were much larger than even the Blue Whale. This needs to be addressed/updated in the entry.

I don't think so. Some may have been longer ever so slightly, but none so far are heavier. Argentinosaurus is 120 tons, but blue whales can top 150 tons.61.230.72.211 01:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Use Wiki to check out the suborder I previously mentioned. Greater weight does not necessarily equal "larger", it could simply mean more dense, with denser skeletal or muscular systems, etc. If it is determined that the volume of a Blue Whale is the greatest of all time, fine, but there are dinosaur skeletons that have been found that are much longer than that of the Blue Whale. Seansquared 16:51, 19 July 2006

Thanks. That was what I wanted to say. The blue whale is still biggest, to say it in a nutshell. Dora Nichov 04:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Acoustic whatt???

The reference to "20000 acoustic watts" should be dropped unless it could be accurately verified. "Acoustic watt" is NOT a commonly used engineering term. Googling "acoustic watt", I find one acoustic watt equal to 105.7dBSPL, 170dB, 0dB, 120dB, 171dB, 120.05dB, and 112dB. A "Watt" carries no such ambiguity, nor does dBA (commonly called "dB") people speak of when referring to loudness. 12:43 2006-07-26.

[edit] frequent random vandalism

Is there any reason that this article is the subject of such frequent (and random) vandalism? (Like here, although the history is replete with examples.) I mean, it's not like I haven't seen vandalism before, but of all the pages on my watchlist, this is the one that gets hit the most... just wondered if anyone knew why. --Graham^talk/mail/e 23:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anatomy of the ear

I added a section about the whale's ear anatomy, and how it works around the low- to high-impedance air/water problem. I actually tried to look it up here on wikipedia, but when there wasn't an entry, researched it myself and added this bit. Jenzwick 22:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Jenzwick