Talk:Whaling in Iceland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Whaling in Iceland article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

	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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-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 Pros and Cons 2 Post article creation discussion 3 dates 4 NPOV?

[edit] Pros and Cons

I've removed the section entitled 'pros and cons of whaling', since it was clearly vandalised, and not particularly funny. Chue03 12:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Usually new posts should be put at the bottom of the talk page, just so you know in the future. Otherwise good job on removing the vandalism :) -Aryoc 12:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post article creation discussion

Please let the article grow... it's a current event and will grow fast.--Sonjaaa 23:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

How about putting some content in first? --Fang Aili ^talk 23:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but that sure looks like a copyvio to me. --Fang Aili ^talk 23:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

OMG, relax your unbased accusations, you guys LOL! all the content was copy and pasted from other Wikipedia articles. This is an important current event, and we need all the info in one location!--Sonjaaa 23:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok.. I was wondering who puts [1] and [2] and such in their articles. Cheers, Fang Aili ^talk 23:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If you have any problems, I invite you to help me improve and clean up the article constructively by adding to it, rather than just deleting it so I have to start from scratch.--Sonjaaa 23:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates#October 18, it was suggested that this article needs to be re-named, as the whaling is not actually done on the island of Iceland, the current article title is a little misleading. How about "Whaling industry of Iceland" or sth like this? --64.229.177.244 06:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is unclear that the whaling was done in Icelandic waters, so Whaling by Iceland, or Icelandic Whaling or something would be more accurate. Sad mouse 20:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Should this belong as a separate article? This content is covered by whaling and International Whaling Commission and this doesn't add anything more then already stated there.--Siggiari 16:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The introduction paragraph should be a brief headline/summary for the news, not for reciting history. Masquatto 14:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that this article may not be entirely neutral. (with a slight bias in favor of whaling?) I hesitate to make this comment because it seems like any apparent bias in this very new article may be unintentional, but nonetheless, there's definitely a need for a more detailed statement of the motivations involved on both sides, and there're a number of facts that seem erroneous.--LAR 05:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

at the risk of sounding non-neutral. All the good arguments agains whailng are there, which would be none.

Whales are supposed to be smart aren't they? That's the reason why they're "sacred" to animal rights organizations, right? However, whalers can go on hunting and killing them for hundreds of years, all on the same area? I tell you, if whales were smart they would get the hell out of there.

This is a topic that everybody feels very emotional about. Therefore it's more subjectable to POV and Vandalism. We just have to watch carefully what is happening, and try to be as unbiased as possible..--Siggiari 18:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether arguments are good or bad doesn't matter. Wikipedia is no judge. The only thing that matters is the notability of arguments. If an argument is used widely it should be mentioned. Then it's up to the reader to decide what to make of it. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 11:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dates

The article has two different dates for the recent killing of a fin whale. Peter Harriman 19:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It was caught on 21st of October and landed the day after, 22nd of October--Siggiari 21:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ta. Peter Harriman 19:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV?

"however that has now stalled due to the immobility of the anti-whaling camp" - This doesn't isn't very NPOV, at the least this statement needs some backup.

Also: refs to the whaling convention ("The purpose of the Convention is to provide for [...] the orderly development of the whaling industry.") are not really NPOV. Their estimates do not seem particularly trustworthy, as they have a vested interest in whaling.

International Whaling Commission has a vested interest in whaling? Are you sure you know what IWC is? The IWC Secretariat, you don't get much more NPOV than that on this issue. The text you quote from (International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling) has been signed by all member countries, including staunch anti-whaling countries such as Australia, New Zealand, and UK Matt77 12:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)