Talk:Dolphin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Peer review A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.
Cetaceans
Portal
 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.
Collaboration
 This article has been previously selected as the Cetaceans Collaboration of the Month.
Cetaceans To do:

Contents

[edit] Intelligence

According to an article in the English-language part of Al Jazeera's homepage, Dolphins are not as intelligent as Goldfish. Their brains are bigger, because they are warmblooded in a cold water environment, but they have fewer neurons than Goldfish. The article also mentions some other examples of why Goldfish are smarter than Dolphins. I don't have reference, but it seems that the theory, that Dolphins should be very intelligent, needs documentation, and if proper documentation cannot be found, we should be careful about saying that Dolphins are very intelligent. Dybdahl 08:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been talking to the person who made this claim and to be honest, I find it very questionable. He considers evidence supporting their intelligence in the form of behavioural studies "argueable", despite the overwhelming amount of evidence coming from this front. Read the entire article from Manger here: [1]. Anyway, I guess it may be worth mentioning so I added it again. BabyNuke 12:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Paul Manger's conjecture is based in part by arguing that 1) all claims to intelligence on the part of dolphins is based upon the complexity of their vocalizations and 2) dolphins don't have complex neural control of "vocal cords", ERGO there is no positive evidence of dolphin intelligence. (1) is simply false; vocalization complexity is not the only evidence of dolphin intelligence. Lori Marino at Emory University has been doing a good job of responding to Manger on this basis. (2) on the other hand, is completely irrelevant. The laryngeal sound production hypothesis for dolphins is dead and buried. Dolphins do have complex vocalizations, but the primary locus for production of these is at the phonic lips, about 2.5cm below the blowhole. Manger is apparently completely ignorant of this. --Wesley R. Elsberry 19:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, I've had an other look at it all and I think the theory has gotten no real support. If you honestly believe dolphins are as smart as goldlish look here. If you've watched that and still believe Manger is right, please reply here first before adding it back. BabyNuke 22:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] True Dolphin

There are almost 40 species of true dolphin in 17 genera.

What's a "true dolphin"? The previous paragraph just explained the various different possible meanings of the term "dolphin", and then silently one meaning seems to have been adopted for the rest of the article. For example, it is claimed that killer whales are dolphins. The article needs to clarify in what meaning it uses the term. Preferably, one meaning should be fixed globally for Wikipedia as well, because otherwise any link to this article will confuse more than clarify.

Furthermore, it would be nice if this article could list those features that all dolphins have in common, if any. Like body shape, sonar, intelligence, sound communication, what have you. AxelBoldt 15:43, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

To put it bluntly this article is a bit ropy right now. Once I get through writing an article on each species - see Cetacea to see the progress - then I don't mind volunteering to see if I can sort it out. Pete/Pcb21 16:41, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Ok, you did it already! Brilliant, and brilliant work on Bottlenose Dolphin too. Pete/Pcb21 19:31, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
It may be problematic that there are two similar articles, this one and Oceanic dolphin. Either they will become highly redundant, or one of them will clearly predominate - in which case we have to decide which one. - BorysNr1 13 May 2004

[edit] Capitalization of "orca"

Jimfbleak, I noticed you reverted the capitalization change I made. Care to comment? As I noted in Talk:Orca (referenced in my change comment), I can't find any justification for capitalizing "orca", but perhaps I'm missing something. If you're capitalizing it for emphasis (wrong regardless), perhaps a wiki link would be more appropriate. HorsePunchKid 21:55, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

As I wrote at talk:Orca three hours before you wrote the above comment "Please read the archives of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Tree of Life for literally hundreds of kilobytes of talk on this issue. Please don't just change one article making it out of step with hundreds of others. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Cetaceans for specific whale books that use capital letters for names of species." Check your watchlist more often ;). Pcb21| Pete 22:39, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
My apologies for stepping on any toes! I have actually been watching my watchlist pretty closely, since I was particularly interested in some of the linguistic issues brought up with Orca. I didn't (and still don't) see anything on my watchlist indicating that you made any comment in Talk:Orca in the last few days outside of the "distribution" comments, so that would be why I didn't notice your comment (even though it's clearly right there under the "Capitalization?" heading...?). I found the appropriate section in the Cetacean project page. It seems truly bizarre to me to capitalize names that are not part of scientific taxonomy, but if there is such a history of acrimony on this topic, I'm not going to press the issue :). I'm sure it will be resolved in good time. Thanks for the pointers and your patience! HorsePunchKid 03:52, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

[edit] Unlock ETA

Any idea when this article will be unlocked? I wish to expand the section on Feeding and also vocalizations. Grika 14:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Uh... exactly which article are you talking about? --Ihope127 8 July 2005 02:51 (UTC)

[edit] Lists

I added a list of dolphins

68.169.113.246 Talk to me, 68.169.113.246 My contributions

[edit] Law

Is their a Law in the United States outlawing the hunting and killing of dolphins? If not, how do I advocate to the government to outlaw hunting and killing? Admiral Roo (Talk to me)(My Contributions) 19:17, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... First question, ask a lawyer. Second question, ask a senator or representative. ;-) --Ihope127 8 July 2005 02:49 (UTC)
Actually, the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 is the relevant federal code. Unpermitted "take" of marine mammals is prohibited, with some few exceptions for depredating animals, IIRC. "Take" is not necessarily killing. "Take" can also be feeding, swimming with, approaching too closely, etc. -- Wesley R. Elsberry 10:25 28 February 2006 (PDT)

[edit] new species

Looks like there's a new species discovered recently in Australia: http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/news/stories/s1407213.htm - UtherSRG July 7, 2005 03:02 (UTC)

Better link: http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=15752 - UtherSRG July 7, 2005 03:03 (UTC)

Ok. So I'm slow. Ignore me now. :) - UtherSRG July 7, 2005 03:05 (UTC)

[edit] Subphylum removal

Why did you revert the edit that added "subphylum: vertebrata" to the classification table? This is not my field, but looking at Vertebrate it seems to me that the edit was correct (except for "vertebrata" not being spelled "vertabrata" in Latin, as far as I know). LjL 21:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, uh, sorry, wasn't intentional. I thought I was on the talk page. LjL 22:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Taxoboxes are meant to be a brief snapshot, some quick information. They are not intended to be an all-inclusive taxonomic listing. Only the major taxa should be listed, except for the intermediary taxa between the article's subject and the rank immediately above. For example, the recent addition of "Vertebrata" to mammal was good, but to this page it was not. - 22:34, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sex life of dolphins and interspecies sex

There are many documented cases of dolphin-human amorous relations. Dolphins are also very randy & horny creatures. Also, male dolphins sometimes rape female dolphins. I think the dolphin page should mention these things... :)

Tonywalton  | Talk 09:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Where's Kim Cattrall when you really need her? Trekphiler 00:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the rape part should be included. While I too find dolphins to be utterly fascinating and beautiful this article is currently typical in its idolization of dolphins in a very biased and unrealistic manner. Think of it this way, perhaps: maybe they are TOO close to us in intelligence, or at least behavior, though of course many other species (including primates) engage in what we would often term "rape". It is disturbing, but true. --Fitzhugh 00:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Added the following: "Sex does not appear to be consensual in all cases however, with male Bottlenose Dolphins even being known to molest females of other dolphin species." - I cannot provide a source for the "other species" claim, it's just something I've seen on TV once but I have no idea what documentary it was from. Also, removed the claim that dolphins have sex to "bond", how would one determine this motive? That bonding may result because of it may be true, but to state that that's the goal of the act...

[edit] Mammal from Mundanea

While there's lots of interesting stuff in the article, let me offer one factoid that isn't: dolphin milk is about 33% fat, roughly the same as whipping cream. (I think I got that from the Miami Dolphin Creamery Association...so I'd verify it before including.) Trekphiler 00:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC) (& Y, I stole it from Piers)

[edit] Lifespan

There is no mention of typical lifespan of Dolphins in the article, which I thought was odd. --Colin Angus Mackay 11:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

When somebody figures out what the lifespan in the wild is, I'm sure that it will get added. There are T. truncatus in the care of man that have lived to their late thirties and early forties. I don't think that I've heard of any reaching fifty or more years of age. I suspect that average lifespan in the wild is on the short side of thirty years, but I have as little means to verify that as various others have for claiming that mean lifespan in the wild is longer than thirty. Probably the best guide to age distribution in the wild will come from the long-term study of the Sarasota, Florida population conducted under Randy Wells. They've been tracking many dolphins, and they've been doing this for a couple of decades now. Ironically, Wells and his colleagues are perenially harassed by animal rights activists. -- Wesley R. Elsberry 14:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It varies per species. Orca's can live very long, some even close to a hundred years of age, while a bottlenose is unlikely to live longer than fifty. Indeed, the average lifespan in the wild seems to be an item of controversy and may also vary per location. BabyNuke 15:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dodgy bits

"Their teeth are arranged in a way that works as an array or antenna focusing the incoming sound, making it easier for them to pinpoint the exact location of an object."

This statement is highly speculative, to say the least. Yes, there is a published paper plumping for this, but frankly, it is most likely completely erroneous. I'd recommend removal from the main page untill such time as some confirming work is done. -- Wesley R. Elsberry 21:30, 27 February 2006 (PDT)

"Stunning - using the echolocation melon, very loud clicks are directed at prey, stunning them."

Again, speculative stuff that doesn't deserve bald statement as fact. In fact, work reported at the recent 16th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals demonstrated that exposure to sound of the right level and frequency content didn't cause a change in behavior of various fish species, much less cause them to be disabled. -- Wesley R. Elsberry 21:35, 27 February 2006 (PDT)

"In captivity, many dolphins seem to have committed suicide. They either do so by repeatedly slamming their head against the pool walls or other solid objects or simply by not coming up for air anymore. Probably one of the best known cases of dolphin suicide is that of a dolphin named Cathy, one of the bottlenose dolphins that performed in the television series Flipper. She most likely died of self induced asphyxiation in the presence of her trainer Richard O'Barry.[1]"

And the source for this is what, Ric O'Barry? This isn't exactly "neutral point of view" or well-substantiated knowledge. -- Wesley R. Elsberry 21:38, 27 February 2006 (PDT)
Removed it. Though there's many cases known I agree it's hard to say for sure if they truely commit suicide. BabyNuke 12:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

"Such military dolphins, however, drew scrutiny during the Vietnam War when rumors circulated that dolphins were being trained to kill Vietnamese Skin Divers."

Should Wikipedia be passing on rumor-mongering? There are plenty of rumors that don't rate propagation, and this is, IMHO, one of them. -- Wesley R. Elsberry 21:39, 27 February 2006 (PDT)
"Dolphins were being trained to kill Vietnamese Skin Divers," is a rumor. That military dolphins drew scrutiny because of that rumor's existence is factual, and seems relevent to the topic of military dolphins in general, at least as a minor historical note, regardless of whether or not such scrutiny had any rational basis at the time.
Then the entry should be amended to note that there was no basis for the rumors. That is, there is no verifiability for the rumors themselves. --Wesley R. Elsberry 09:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism by Schmidbauer

According to some American users this article was vandalized by a German guy called User:Tobias_Schmidbauer. Well, the erratic behavior of this guy is well-known on the German Wiki.

This is my report:

Tobias Schmidbauer also vandalizes the German Wikipedia; e.g. the article on Guantanamo-Bay and organic farming. In the article on Guantanamo-Bay he changed a headline without giving a reason over a time of at least two months. He is the only user in the discussion on Guantanamo-Bay article who believes that his weird behavior is correct. He is a 19-year old student who claims on his German wikipedia user site that he is Donald Duck. When a vandalism notice was issued, he suggested as a revenge two articles of this person for deletion within half an hour after he found the notice. When the author of the two articles (a renowned scientist) opened the discussion on the deletion he found at this time only a masturbation photo which appeared to him to be posted by Schmidbauer (in fact the photo was from an anonymous IP, but the IP can well be identical to Schmidbauers computer, who knows?)!!! Schmidbauer is also calling the author a "revisionist", in other words a Nazi (for his reverts) and other insults. Two German admins endorsed this behavior, they didn't delete these insults, instead they blocked the author who just tried to keep an article free of vandalism and the German Wikipedia free of Schmidbauer's nonsense and insults.

Note: The German wikipedia has been heavily critisized in the past for being a dictatorship of a few admins.

[edit] Recreational sex

In the edit at 17:57, 18 March 2006, an anonymous user at 70.18.161.207 added the following to the article:

Dolphins, along with humans and bonobos, are the only animals known to have sexual intercourse for fun.

In the next edit (18:34), UtherSRG reverted this change. While I'm glad that UtherSRG has always been so vigilant about vandalism here, I think this may have been a little overambitious in this case. A brief search on Google doesn't reveal any reputable references for this meme, but it's common enough that it may warrant more research, or at least mention. I'm going to add it back, saying that it's a widespread belief, if there are no objections. --Piquan 09:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I reverted because it is untrue. Many species have sex for fun. In fact, I would hazard that with the exception of humans, none do it with the purpose of procreation. See Non-human animal sexuality. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
What about simply making it something like "Dolphins are (amongst the animals) known to have sex for fun"? BabyNuke 21:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Again, see Non-human animal sexuality. Many animals have sex for fun. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I have to say I can't quite see how dolphins could have recreational sex as dolphin sex is a rather intricate buissness of some syncronised 'spraying of fluids' without going to deep into the depths of aquatic mammal intercourse. Though stimulating I can't really see why it would be recreationally fun enough to participate in. Infact recreational sex is a hard thing to pin down as you'd need to know a.) what motivates an animal to procreate, b.) whether the animal is capable of 'enjoyment'...satisfaction, release and enjoyment/fun are quite different things. The first two are primal instincts whilst the latter two are higher order processes we think. To be honest asking whether animals engage in sexual activites is virtually impossible to be sure on. The bonobo monkey's social structure is not disimilar from a human one only very very basic by comparison. They engage in sexual acts for a number of very complex social reasons. E.g. female bonobos have recreational sex with males to increase their social status, popularity one might interpret it as. Dolphins are harder to read as they are so different from humans/primates. I suspect this is a popular myth. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 21:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
First, I feel it is fair to assume that dolphins are capable of enjoyment. Like many other animals, dolphin will engage in obvious play (often using objects as toys) and the most logical reason for this play is that they enjoy it. Why does a dog participate in the game of fetch? I say because it enjoys it and I feel this assumption is reasonable. To say that dolphins have sex purely for fun, well - I even doubt that's the case with humans. Instinctive sex drive is still the primary factor, even for us - but that doesn't mean we can't enjoy it and that this also plays an important role for us. Having established that dolphins can also enjoy themselves, I see no reason why they couldn't also enjoy sex and this being at least an important factor in explaining their wide variety of sexual behaviour. BabyNuke 21:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
An interesting debate we have going, a nice well thought out arguement. Dogs play fetch because they are eager to please. In essence they play fetch because you want them to, funny eh?. I think what the dog enjoys isn't so much the game, but rather the social acceptance from the 'alpha pair' the dog recieves while playing. They are the centre of attention for the game. Cats for example 'play' (or what is interpreted as such) because it hones their hunting and survival ability. One might say a dog plays for the same reasons - its a pack hunter and so effecient operation within the social structure of the pack is important.
That needn't be so. Dogs (and cats) can play games all by themselves. One game I recall was a dog letting a ball roll down a slide, then run after it and catch it. No other dogs or people involved. BabyNuke 15:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think its actually harder to pin down why humans play than it is animals, as like most things humans 'play' on a very advanced social level with many factors from exersise, the relief of boredom to searching for a mate, and thats hard to interpret when your subject to it/part of it. My thought comes down to - does a dolphin enjoy sex... or does it get satisfaction from sex? Both can be said to be fun, but I think fun is a very ambigious term. Even for humans im sure most of us can remember times when we've had a.) fun sex, and b.) satisfying sex, and I don't mean just sexual satisfaction but more a relief of a biological requirement. Cats procreate for satisfaction, they are driven to it. Dogs the same. Dolphins I'm not so sure about, they evolved from animals which don't generally procreate for fun which suggestes to me they don't, and as a fairly solitary animal I can't see what it would stand to gain from fun sex, but who knows...only god and the dolphins I expect. ;) WikipedianProlific(Talk) 15:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

In the end, I think enjoyment is an important aspect, but unlikely to be the sole reason. So saying they do it "just for fun" is probably wrong. The way the article currently puts it, "other reasons than procreation", pretty much nails it if you ask me. BabyNuke 15:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] As smart as a two year old?

From the article: "A typical statement would be that dolphins are roughly as intelligent as a two-year-old human."

It's true that that's a typical statement, I get over 100 hits for it on google (though many of them seem to have gotten it from this article). Although the article does say that "experts in comparative psychology or animal cognition would be reluctant to make any such estimate", I feel that by including this statement here it is still presented as being fairly reliable. In my opinion, the statement is complete nonsense and has no place in the article. And all I can find about this is just this claim, I can't find anything that provides real evidence that this is the case, but besides that, you just can't compare a two year old child with an adult dolphin in any way. BabyNuke 15:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Who added it to the article? Perhaps ask them want they meant? It does seem a rather meaningless statement. Pcb21 Pete 16:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Some added a "citation needed" now, but that's meaningless as it is a typical statement - it just happens to be wrong. I've deleted that part completely and restructured intelligence a bit as it didn't flow well. BabyNuke 18:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall reading about dolphins able to develop their own language and call each other by names. They are intelligent animals, if you don't mind me saying so, and I personally believe that if given body parts such as humans (we have a pair of hands that could grab and so on), they could develop further... well... developments. Tools, perhaps? Or am I just thinking way too far-fetched thoughts? Forgive me if I sound ignorant. 202.73.122.227 00:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If given body parts such as humans? What the f--k!! You'll talking about grafting humans limbs onto dolphins. Yeah, I'm sure they dolphins would -love- that. Besides, why the hell would a dolphin even want a pair of limbs. They'd be pointless, a drag, underwater. Your whole mindset seems to based on the notion that dolphins aspire to be like humans, to build cities and start fish farms and so forth. How preposterous, and how arrogant! Chris 17:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC) illustration
That's untrue. No evidence shows Dolphin is smarter than other advanced mammals such as dogs & monkeys. It's just human conjecture largely resulted from the observation of Dolphin's big brain.
Read this. Anyway, intelligence is not a measurable unit. A dolphin can be 2.5m long and weigh 300kg but we cannot just use a number for intelligence. For humans, we have an IQ test. Part of an IQ test is a mental picture test. I think it's fair to assume dolphins have a mental picture that's superior to our own, first due to their usage of echolocation and second because their world is more three dimensional. But it's also fair to assume we're better at mathematical problems. BabyNuke 18:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inadvertent truth

A vandal added, "And remember...when provoked DOLPHINS WILL EAT POO." Actually, various dolphins will customarily sample water from where a conspecific has just defecated. While dolphins don't have a sense of smell, they do have a well-developed sense of taste. Researchers hypothesize that they may be able to obtain some information on health status and especially reproductive status in this way. Wesley R. Elsberry 00:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Sousa chinensis chinensis ???

What do they mean by Sousa chinensis chinensis? Binomials can't have 3 worlds! Binomials should always be 2 words with the first word capitalised! Chinese White Dolphin IS Sousa chinensis. It is a sub-species of Humpback Dolphin, BUT Sousa Chinensis= Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphin. Cherubfish 17:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Subspecies have a trinomial, like Gorilla beringei beringei, to distinguish them from other subspecies, like Gorilla beringei graueri, and the species as a whole (Gorilla beringei). In the case of the Humpback dolphins, the taxonomy is still very fluid and scientists are not sure which populations are species and which are subspecies. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Converstaion status

Are dolphins endangered?--Are they stable? This needs to be in the little box of summary information like other animals Nastajus 15:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No. We put those remarks on species boxes, not on higher level boxes. Look at each dolphin species article for its status. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dolphin Training

I just got back from Mexico where I had an opportunity to swim with Dolphins, upon my return I decided to do some research on How we are able to Train dolpins. Sadly, there are no articles. Unfortunately I am not able to write an article on this topic so I was hoping that someone reading this may be able to shed some light on the topic.

Dolphins are trained via operant conditioning. Within that, people have figured out that positive reinforcement is the way to go. The situation with dolphins actually has some overlap with the approach falconers take with their birds, which respond quite badly if punishment is used rather than positive reinforcement. -- Wesley R. Elsberry 00:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Needs more Skinner boxes. Seriously I majored in psych, and I have no idea what you're trying to say. Chris 18:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
What part do you find confusing, that dolphins are trained using operant conditioning and positive reinforcement, or that there is a similarity between dolphins and falcons in that both don't train well using any sort of punishment? --Wesley R. Elsberry 20:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] speed

Minor request for an expert, how fast can the fastest dolphin's swim? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.145.236.207 (talk • contribs) .

I believe for the bottlenose, about 50 km/h is pretty much the maximum. I'm not sure if they're the fastest of all dolphin species though, but I do not expect any other species to be significantly faster. BabyNuke 20:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Killer whales have been recorded at 55km/h ;) SammytheSeal 06:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with mythology-specific page

It seems to me that Dolphin (mythology) is more section-length than article-length (aside from probably being able to use some cleanup), and would fit better as a section in the main article. I therefore propose that it be merged into the main article. Any objections? --Drake Wilson 00:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

:I agree. I am, after all, a mergist. --Gray Porpoise 01:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I recently spoke with a delphinologist at an art gallery in Seattle (Dr. Patricia Weyer), and while I couldn't add significatly to the page, it was very clear that the Dolphin (mythology) page has a lot more work before it's complete. I'd rather see it become a stub than see it merged, because I think the expansion would be really wonderful. --Damate 23:27, 21 August 2006 (PST)
Never mind. The mythological aspect does have the potential to be an extensive article in itself. Still, I think "Dolphins in mythology" would be a better title. --Gray Porpoise 20:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I see what you both mean; you make a convincing case. Proposal withdrawn; moved and stubified the mythology-specific page instead, which is now at Dolphins in mythology. --Drake Wilson 01:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dolphins as food

dolphin is a very tasty food and lots of foriegn countries eat it. perhaps there should be a mention of dolphin meat, types of it and where to obtain it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.7.253 (talk • contribs) .

Possibly. The dolphin drive hunting article (as listed in the see also section) explains one of the most common hunting methods used, but no detailed information on the meat itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BabyNuke (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Swimming with Dolphins?

I heard recently (on the TV show Lonely Planet, the episode set in Perth, Australia) that new evidence is suggesting that dolphins may not enjoy swimming with us nearly as much as we thought, that many areas are banning organised dolphin swims, and that being able to swim with dolphins may soon be a thing of the past. I seem to recall that it might have mentioned something about it not being very healthy for them. Anyone else hear this, or know of a reference that could be cited? Hegar 18:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I believe that in Hawaii for example, dolphin tours are now so abundant that they start to interfere with the every day life of the animals. Constantly being followed by boats for example denies them needed resting periods. Besides this, the experience may be special for people, if dolphins have to go through the same thing every day, it's no surprise they quickly lose interest. [2] BabyNuke 19:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dolphins in human culture

I feel this section needs a re-write. First, I think it is very much possible to get rid of the list. Second, many entries are very trivial. Any ideas? BabyNuke 13:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Rewrote it, keeping all but one of the original entries. BabyNuke 16:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration

This article, since no others were nominated, has become the Cetaceans Collaboration of the Month. Unfortunately, the only recent edits have been testing, vandalism, and reversions. Do your best to improve it! --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 10:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I already rewrote the entire "dolphins in human culture" section. Anyway, I suppose the most important thing the article needs now is references. BabyNuke 11:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking, a photo of dolphins herding a bait ball would be a really nice addition. Can't find any good fair use photos of it though, so if anyone knows where to find one... BabyNuke 16:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pruned external links

I've removed the following external links: http://www.allaboutdolphins.net - disputeable information http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4034383.stm - too specific article, could function as a reference http://www.cetacea.org - website down http://www.robins-island.org/ - rather simplistic http://www.wilddolphin.org/dolphinpictures.htm - dead http://www.accobams.org/download/articles/population/Agazzi_etal_2004.pdf - again too specific for an external link, but can be used as reference http://www.projectshum.org/Dolphins/ - far too simple, plus the jokes ain't funny http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,989714,00.html - also too specific

BabyNuke 22:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the right way/place to write this, but has anyone addressed this relevant news item? (dolphin found with 4 fins, trace of evolution from four-footed land animals) http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/05/0840227&from=rss

Interesting to say the least. Probably worth mentioning. No suprise where the dolphin got captured though. BabyNuke 10:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

At a glance, most of the article looks pretty good. One problem, though, is that the introduction is too short. --Gray Porpoisecetaceans have large brains 00:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extinction of Baiji

News report on failure of survey to find baiji

The baiji, or Yangtze River Dolphin, is most likely extinct. A 26-day survey failed to locate any of the baiji. --Wesley R. Elsberry 01:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I've already mentioned it in the treaths to dolphins section. BabyNuke 11:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 2007: (International) Year of the Dolphin

The year 2007 has been declared as (International) Year of the Dolphin by the United Nations and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (External link: official website 2007: (International) Year of the Dolphin.

The UN Convention on Migratory Species, together with its specialized agreements on dolphin conservation ACCOBAMS and ASCOBANS and the WDCS (Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society) have proposed 2007 as the "Year of the Dolphin" ('YOD')).

  • Background

Dolphins are threatened marine mammals with close ties to human history and culture. Living in oceans and rivers, their survival is becoming increasingly difficult. Dolphins need clean and quiet oceans, protected areas.

The Year of the Dolphin will be part of the UN Decade on Education for Sustainable Development. The campaign is also a tangible contribution towards meeting targets to reduce the loss of wildlife by 2010 which all Governments have agreed through the UN.

  • Theme / Campaign / Activities

The United Nations, member Governments, intergovernmental organizations, NGOs and the private sector (e.g. TUI) are building a strong alliance to achieve a common objective: to protect dolphins.
A crucial factor in achieving this is education to create awareness of dolphin species, educate, inform decision makers and involve local communities.

  • Patron

The designated (International) Patron of the Year of the Dolphin is H.S.H. Prince Albert II of Monaco, who formally launched the year on 17 September 2006. The Prince released a statement reading: "The Year of the Dolphin gives me the opportunity to renew my firm commitment towards protecting marine biodiversity. With this strong initiative we can make a difference to save these fascinating marine mammals from the brink of extinction".
- ( Brabo 02:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC) )

[edit] POV issues

See discussion at Talk:Cetacea#POV issues. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 00:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] saving people

a section on dolphines saving people from drowning--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 14:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

My boss in 1985 used to grumble whenever an anecdote about dolphins rescuing humans would hit the gossip grapevine, "You wouldn't expect to hear from the ones they dragged further out to sea." --Wesley R. Elsberry 18:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Tião BabyNuke 18:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] screensaver of Dolphins

i added a free dolphin screensaver for everyone who love dolphins :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.192.42.217 (talk) 05:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

I removed the link. Should we put up links to dolphin calendars? Winamp skins? Dolphin tattoos? There's loads of stuff that might look nice but it has little relevance. BabyNuke 15:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removed horrific image

There used to be an image of slaughtered dolphins. I removed it, because it's horrific and inappropriate. What if a little girl who loves cute animals visits this page and sees slaughtered dolphins? I know Wikipedia is not censored and doesn't have any policy against offensive content, but in this case such portrayal of shocking gore is comnpletely unnecessary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caballaria (talk • contribs) 11:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

I disagree. First of all, you said it yourself - wikipedia is uncensored and thus the image perfectly fits that section. The photo shows nothing but reality, even if reality is grim on occasion. Wikipedia is first of all a source of information and just because some things aren't as pleasant doesn't mean they should be left out. If a little girl sees the photo, I'm tempted to say so what? The world isn't all beautiful and if she cares about dolphins, perhaps then a photo like that may serve as a wake-up call. BabyNuke 13:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The article does say that dolphin get slaughtered. Do we need to add a picture, even? That's the equivalent of putting a picture of some horrific slaughtered person under "homo sapiens" on the ground that people get killed and slaughtered, too. When I'm looking for information, I'm looking for information, I'm not looking for cheap shock stuff. Now, if the picture had some vital informative value, then it would be a good idea to post it. But in this case, what's the point? Do we find some kind of perverted pleasure in forcing people to see horrific picture? This is not information, this is tasteless sadism.

I have to add, frankly, I'm surprised that anyone even cared about restoring the picture. Why do you care so much about it? Do you really think it improves the article? Take a step backwards and watch this in perspective. Do you think an article about dolphin is better with or without a very gory image of slaughtered dolphins? The answer is that it's better without, because then it's readable for a wider audience. On the other side, keeping the image wouldn't add anything to wether the article is informative. Caballaria 17:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I added the photo in the first place, hence I reverted your change. I feel the image is informative in the sense that by far the majority of people I know do not know these things happen to begin with. An image can say a thousand words. It has nothing to do with sadism, it is reality. Sadly, it seems you for some reason cannot actually deal with reality because you do not like it and hence would rather not see it. Yes, ignorance is bliss. If people skim the article, the image will stand out - make people stop, see what it is about and think. People might just learn something - and isn't that one of the main goals of wikipedia? As it is said on wp itself, a good image has the capture someone's attention. And it does. I love dolphins, there is no pleasure for me in seeing this. I hope for people to see the image and then read up on what they see.
I am reverting it again for now. HOWEVER, I would like some comments from others also. Should the majority of people agree with Caballaria, then I won't push for it. I am not interested in an edit war anyway. I would also like you to not delete it again before some others have given their opinion on this. It has been there for a while now and you're the first to complain. BabyNuke 19:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The image should stay. Saying dolphin are slaughtered is just words. Pictures can show what slaughter looks like. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Image should stay - it´s an exceeding good image and far from gory.. SammytheSeal 09:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Late to the party, but image should stay. WP is not censored. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No references for dolphins in human culture section

I've added two "see also" notes to it and beyond that, I do not believes this section needs any references. The article on the Flipper TV series is enough of a reference and that also goes for the various other things such as books and movies mentioned. If you still find something that really needs a reference, place a note behind that specific entry please. BabyNuke 14:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/o/l/Talk%7EDolphin_8d74.html"