Talk:Whaling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
High	This article has been rated as high-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: 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: Pictures of the baiji are wanted. Featured/Good article candidates: none at present Patrol: Look through the Category:Cetaceans for recent changes Collaboration of the Month: Baiji Other: See the project page.

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

For older items see Talk:Whaling/Archive1

Contents 1 Introductory paragraph 2 "Legitimate" Norwegian Whaling 3 History 4 Whales Conservation Status 5 Re-org 6 Using a table for conservation status 7 Note on species 8 Gray Whale 9 Revert, please 10 POV: User:Hokanomono 11 POV: User:Jachin 12 Please keep the Japan section in this article concise 13 Reply to PCB21 - Apyule 14 Japanese section - reorg 15 Recipe link 16 Re : The economic argument 17 Section from Whaling in Japan deleted 18 Japan's price of whale meat 19 NPOV 20 minke whale's diet 21 News 22 Organically grown? 23 US whaling history 24 Anti-Whaling vs. Pro-Conversation 25 Whale Meat and Environmental Toxins 26 Historical statistics 27 Market forces driving whaling 28 Whaling songs 29 The arguments for and against whaling 30 Whaling by pirate 31 IUCN Red List 32 NPOV 33 NPOV Flag 34 Conversation status: Addition 35 Factual error 36 Lead section 37 Phanly - Amended Intro 38 Conservation status 39 Whale Intelligence 40 Fishing 41 Pengo revert 42 Economic Argument 43 IUCN Table 44 History & Modern & Country entries

[edit] Introductory paragraph

I have amended the introductory paragraph where it said "The potential of the extermination of species by whaling" as it implies that the extinction of species is a possible future event. In fact whale species extinction is an existing historical fact as is the endangered status of certain of the great whales. Similary while it may be semantically correct to say there is no consensus in the sense of unanimous agreement or even very large majority agreement, the current situation is clearly that commercial whaling is banned by the IWC. A statement that there is no consensus while semantically correct is too vague.dinghy 21:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

In reponse to SammyThe Seal: the reference is the United Nations web site as was clear in the reference in the text that you reverted: http://www.un.org/works/environment/animalplanet/whale.html The following are direct quotes from that page:
"At the height of the whaling industry, one species after another was killed off."
"Even with these conservation efforts, seven of the 13 great whales remain endangered as new threats contribute to their plight."
I will revert the introduction to my edit as these and the fact that the IWC has a moratorium on commercial facts are the top level current facts of whaling today
dinghy 23:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Phanly,

Read the whaling article - Look at the table - which species are extinct? None ... reverted - and will continue to revert - please check your facts, rather rely on your interpretation of "one" article ..SammytheSeal 01:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Addition - the list of extinct species you linked to has zero to do with whaling - or do you disagree? SammytheSeal 01:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Sammy, I relied on a specific statement on UN web page re extinction of whales. I did not interpret it, but I accept that it appears to be incorrect. Thanks. As to the sentence that there is no consensus, I accept that it is correct in the sense that the margin of majority for the decision to ban commercial whaling is small,believe it serves to obfuscate that there is in fact a ban on commercial whaling by the IWC. I will add that part as an addition to the existing sentence. dinghy 00:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Phanly, I modified the intro to reflect the ST Kitts and Nevis declaration from the 2006 IWC meeting - it´s a slim one vote majority ..SammytheSeal 23:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Legitimate" Norwegian Whaling

Can anyone explain what the justification for saying the Norway "legimately" continues commercial whaling in defiance of the IWC moratorium? They've been members since 1960, and are thus obligated to comply. The current phrasing seems like a definite POV issue to me.--12.15.238.50 19:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"In 1982, the IWC adopted a moratorium on all commercial whaling, to take effect from 1986. Norway formally reserved its position on the IWC moratorium, but nevertheless introduced a temporary ban on minke whale harvesting from 1987, pending more reliable information on the state of the stocks.

The moratorium included a clause stating that “by 1990 at the latest the Commission will undertake a comprehensive assessment of the effects of this decision on whale stocks and consider modification of this provision [the moratorium] and the establishment of other catch limits.” This meant that new, more reliable stock assessments for the stocks from which catches might be taken, and a revised procedure for their management, were to be available by this deadline. The Scientific Committee met both these requirements, but at its Annual Meetings since 1990 the Commission has nevertheless been unwilling to re-evaluate the moratorium and catch quotas. Instead, it has specified new conditions that must be fulfilled before catch quotas can be discussed.

This could only be interpreted as delaying tactics, and was the basis for the Norwegian government’s unilateral decision to resume whaling in 1993. Norway sets an annual quota for the minke whale hunt on the basis of the Revised Management Procedure (RMP) adopted by the Scientific Committee. The quota for 2004 is 670 animals.

Norway’s legal right to hunt minke whales is not in question, since Norway formally reserved its position on the IWC moratorium when it was adopted. This reservation was made pursuant to Article V of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, the agreement on which the establishment and activities of the IWC are based.

The express objective of this convention is to ensure “increases in the numbers of whales which may be captured without endangering these natural resources”. Moreover, the Convention lays down that the harvesting level shall “be based on scientific findings”, shall provide for “the conservation, development and optimum utilisation of the whale resources [...] and shall take into consideration the interests of the consumers of whale products”. In other words, the objective of the Convention is not to protect whales for their own sake, but to regulate catches of whales for the benefit of mankind both now and in the future. The position of member countries of the IWC which oppose whaling on principle is in fact in conflict with the Commission's own objectives."

Source: Norwegian governmental site

--Arnejohs 19:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I took a look at the text of Article V subsection 3 (http://www.iwcoffice.org/commission/convention.htm). The language appears to require that at least two contracting governments object in order to trigger an exemption. Do you happen to know the second government (or more) that objected? Also: 1) Can we incorporate a reference to the relevant governing language to short-circuit this discover process for future readers?, and 2) Isn't "legally" a more neutral wording than "legitimately"?

--12.15.238.50 22:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If you read the subsection carefully you will see that any country with a valid objection is exempted from the amendment, even if alone. I guess what confuses you is 3(b), which gives guidelines for how the deadlines are extended for other countries, following an objection. Norway, Soviet Union (followed by Russia), Japan and Peru objected to paragraph 10(e) (the moratorium) of the schedule. Japan and Peru later withdrew their objections. Iceland withdrew from IWC and later rejoined with a reservation to the moratorium (after a close vote), and is therefore in an unclear situation. But for Norway (and Russia) the situation is clear, the IWC schedule site says:

"The objections of Norway and the Russian Federation not having been withdrawn, the paragraph is not binding upon these Governments."

I have no problem with replacing "legitimately" with "legally" (my inferior English skills fail to catch this nuance anyway)

--Matt77 05:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History

Sorry in advance if what I'm doing is improper - I'm kind of new around here. Just wondering why the article is so sparse about the actual history of whaling and the whaling industry. It seems like it should be a bigger part of the article than it is. Thanks. --Jonathan P. Whelan 17:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Because more people are interested in politics of whaling than whaling itself. In wikipedia, there is no distinction of readers and editors. Vapour

does anyone have any figures of whaling?

[edit] Whales Conservation Status

"these populations, whilst not regarded as separate species, are considered to warrant sub categorisation.". Does Red List state the reason for subcategorisation? If not it should merely state that these population is categories into different population.FWBOarticle 20:19, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Download the Cetacean Specialist Groups PDF I mentioned earlier. Then search for "genetic". There are 61 references, several of which are about maintaining genetic diversity.

No specific mention which justify this edit. Please make a quote if you want to restore the claim that these different whales are sufficiently unique. btw, I'm FWBOarticle. Vapour

And I really believe that we should archive this page. There has been significant rearrangement of the original article by you and me. It is good point to start anew. Me don't know how to archive a page. :)FWBOarticle 20:19, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I already archived it. The discussions still are too new. Pcb21| Pete 22:53, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, I can't use your link. Can you past link to PDF of the Cetacean Specialist Gropus. Secondly, "No species of Whales has gone extinc" is a fact. And that canpt be censored by your anti-whaling agenda. You can mention about the extinction of Atlantic Gray Whales population in Gray Whale section. FWBOarticle 08:32, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/actionplans/cetaceans/cetaceans.pdf

For crying out loud, NO ONE IS SAYING THAT THE ATLANTIC GRAY WHALE IS A SPECIES. Thus no-one is saying that a species of whales has gone extinct (at the hands of whalers). Please refrain from making that accusation again. That you wish to hide facts about extinct and critically endangered populations that the IUCN point out, not me, by putting them in the "Lower Risk" column is a pure indication of your POV.

It is also indicative of your lack of knowledge in this area. Let me ask you this - the last time you asked a whaler, or a conservationist, which ever side of the debate you like, do they talk in terms of species, or do they talk about populations?

I ask this because you seem under the delusion that species are the be all and end all. They are not. This is not just me saying this - this is absolutely the standard practice across all of zoology. My instinct is that you don't have that much familiarity with this area, and parroting what you have read on whaling.jp. Pcb21| Pete 08:49, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for the link. And it appear the reason for giving difference conservation status of population is not attributed to genetic difference. It merely describe some population to be genetically different. Therefore, I will alter it.

What DO you think that the status of populations is listed? When you read that PDF (just the opening ten pages or so will give you a feel) where is the emphasis? Populations! Again I repeat the suggestion that you do not have much familiarity with this area.

Secondly, I know you are not saying that atlantic gray whale is a species. Problem is that puting that into "IUCN List" is incorrect because it's conservation status is defined as the status of "taxion" and Atlantic Gray Whale do not have this classification. I have made allowwance to your insistence of inclusion of population gropus as appendix. But Atlantic population of Gray Whale cannot be presented in contradiction with IUCN LIST's conservation status qualification. If you are not happy about it, you can present these population's conservation status outside IUCN RED LIST. You are free to mention that souce of conservation status of each population come from IUCN or source quoted in IUCN. And yes, I know these different subspecies of whales can crossbreed. And me, you or zoologist can debate about the definition of species. The point I'm raising is that we should not distort IUCN RedList. IUCN says under the definition set by IUCN, EXTINCT category do not have whales taxtion. Four Species of whale are categorised as ENDANGERED. Mink Wales are "Near Threatened". Each category are specifically defined by IUCN and you ought to leave these definitions as they are. FWBOarticle 10:16, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have always only presented the same information available from the IUCN. In fact, for the last few revisions, I have presented exactly the same information as you. It is only the manner of presentation that we haven't agreed on. You want a "critically endangered" column empty for your own political purposes. You might say I don't want it empty for MY own purposes. My point is that as a scientist in the field, I am confident my presentation would meet with general scientific approval, and yours would not. Pcb21| Pete 10:26, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

O.K. then you can have whale population which has proper IUCN classification included in IUCN Red List. That means, Atlantic Gray Whales is out. You are free to mention its extinction somewhere else. FWBOarticle 10:44, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You have repeatedly refused to listen to me - as evidenced by your new claim that the extinct population of AGWs is not recognised by the IUCN. It is mentioned in three places in the IUCN AGW entry. Removal of valid, IUCN-approved information will from now on result in automatic revert. Pcb21| Pete 10:47, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not clear of your reference. Can you provide me with links and page number. If Atlantic Grey Whales is accorded separate population status with proper IUCN conservation category, then go ahead. It appear that several population of Righ Whales among others indeed have proper IUCN status assigned so I apologise for the deletion of these whale population.FWBOarticle 10:54, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

P.S. I won't delete AGW till then.

From http://www.redlist.org/search/details.php?species=8097

"The Gray Whale was extirpated from the North Atlantic within the last 300–400 years, so the only extant representatives of the family Eschrichtiidae are the Gray Whales in the North Pacific."

"The Gray Whale became extinct in the North Atlantic in early historical times but survives in the North Pacific, where there are two geographically separated populations."

Pcb21| Pete 11:07, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've reconsidered and taken the AGW out of the table, as the other Gray species are granted specific codes, but extinct populations are not - that just the way the IUCN list works. I mention the extinction beneath the table. Sorry for the fuss. Pcb21| Pete 16:24, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

no problem. You were right abcout Critically Eandangered list anyway. FWBOarticle 17:50, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

coooooooooo

[edit] Re-org

Re new sections: Hi FWBO. I know we've had a tricky time building a working relationship, so I wanted to try to take things slowly with your most recent additions... however a lot of what you adding is repeating what we have at International Whaling Commission. We need to take a look at the logical arrangement of sections... things seem to getting a bit out-of-hand. Maybe we should draw up some a layout plan here? Pcb21| Pete 19:55, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

FWBO - I reverted some changes that seemed to make the article even more all over the place. Where are you going with this? Pcb21| Pete 23:00, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree we are having some significant change in the presentation. It is my view that having some concise history, political mechanism and three whaling category of IWC is just so important in modern whaling that it should be discussed as a separate section. Once the text become too big, then it could be farmed out to the separate IWC article for further reading. I have noticed that IWC article itself is not that detailed. Secondly, I felt that the argument in regard to pro and anti whaling in term of conseration status of whales section were getting too big and the information ought to be split between the debate about conservation (anti whaling) and resource utilistion (prowhaling) and the scientific facts about conservation status of whale. I thought that the conservation status can be more appropriately placed in the modern section. I will do bit of copy and paste to see how it works. FWBOarticle

[edit] Using a table for conservation status

I saw you converted to a table. Although I think the list looks neater (and others do too in general see Wikipedia:How to use tables and its talk page), lets stick with the table so that I don't revert everything you do :)! However we cannot have, for example, the Pacific Blue Whale subspecies in the Endangered column - it must go in the Lower Risk/CD column where it belongs - similarly for the other populations - else the table simply has data in the wrong columns. Note this means that some populations "move to the right" (i.e. are listed under a less endangered column" and others "move to the left" - it is not all one way. Pcb21| Pete 07:49, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Note on species

I saw you undid my change wrt to right whales species. Actually the North Pacific and North Atlantic Right Whales are two separate species ( Eubalaena glacialis and Eubalaena japonica)

[edit] Gray Whale

The Gray Whale northeast population appears both in the 'critically endangered' column and the 'lower risk' column. The gray whale page has it as lower risk. Should it be under both?

[edit] Revert, please

Could someone revert the document back to last version made by Apyule? 61.91.145.67 vandalized the article, and I don't know how to revert.

Done. If you want to see how to revert a page, have a look here. --Apyule 05:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV: User:Hokanomono

It is my belief that Hokanomono has a chip on his shoulder against Greenpeace or anything anti-whaling. I base this on the fact that he reverted one of my updates with the description of 'removing greenpeace propaganda'. I have no affiliation with any 'animal rights' group.

I recently updated the Japan section to reflect the global trends and reactions to Japanese incursions in Australian coastal waters, the current trend of whale being on Japanese school menu's and the argument that it is 'culturally acceptable' to slaughter whales under the guise of 'research' yet use the produce for food.

This is all based on various media sources (Reuters, news.com.au, CNN) and citing references would be moot as it was global news in each instance. Therefore the validity of my edit is not in question.

I wish to ask that Hokanomono cease unthought reverts on his knee-jerk POV receptiveness on this subject and instead heed to a more Wikipedian code of conduct on the matter. I am writing this for the benefit of those who noticed my revert and for Hokanomono. Jachin 23:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, in a moment of rage I deleted too much. I was upset by the paragraph which states as a fact that Japan would try to buy it's way back to commercial whaling. Allegations like this should be quoted as what they are: allegations from greenpeace and media citing greenpeace, but not facts so far. However, it may be that this section is not the right place to discuss these allegations.

Phrase your text to just explain the state of discussion and it will not be POV but a valuable contribution to the article. -- Hokanomono 07:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV: User:Jachin

Part of your entry states:

"In recent years, through its fisheries aid funding, the Japanese Fisheries Agency has been amassing a group of small, impoverished island states such as Tuvalu, Palau and Grenada (among many others, plus African countries such as Guinea and Benin, and even the landlocked Mongolia) to create a pro-whaling bloc in the International Whaling Commission, in an attempt to "buy" its way back to commercial whaling."

That "may" or "may" not be the case, but if you wish a NPOV, you should also include the anti- whaling lobbying to include countries such as Switzerland and various other landlocked countries who do not or have never been whaling countries. As it stands, your first paragraph really does resemble Greenpeace propaganda. I really "should" write a paragraph or two on how the present state of affairs at the IWC is a direct result of anti-whaling "gaming" of the politics and make-up of the IWC Plenary commitee. Whilst I´m at it, I´ll include how the plenary committee politicians have ignored many aspects of the scientific committee´s recommendations for the last 15 years or so

That wasn't posted by me. Check the history. That was part of the original Japan entry as far as I'm aware. Jachin 08:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The Switzerland argument does not seem to be valid. A landlocked country could still consider whaling to be a cruel practice that should be banned, while it is more difficult to see why a landlocked country like Mongolia would fight for a resumption of commercial whaling which it does not have any economic interest in. Tomtefarbror 15:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

As for this :

"This is backed up by the fact that all whale meat from 'research harvested whales' is sold to resteraunts, recently even becoming a menu item in certain Japanese school cafeteria's under the guise of it being a 'cultural dish'. This indicates that the whales were killed for cultural dining purposes and not research, which would be in direct breach of the IWC's mandates."

It´s a requirement of their permit that the meat be sold to offset costs - It´s an IWC requirment / rule. I suggest you read the ICRW in detail, particularly Article VIII

So where is the 'research' factor? I don't think a carcass used in scientific research is safe for human consumption, but then again Japan has never published any of it's 'whale' research to date, so we'll never know whether it's safe or not.  ;) Jachin 08:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

What you "think" is your personal opinion ;) ...

Here are a list of papers submitted to the IWC by the Japanese Institute of Cetacean Research ( ICR ) to the IWC scientific committee

http://luna.pos.to/whale/icr_papers.html 217.83.102.114 10:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is a rather gross error to forget that is what IWC rules say. We should also note who lobbied to have that rule put in ;). Pcb21| Pete 09:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, just for the sake of fairness, have a read here http://luna.pos.to/whale/iwc_vb.html Propaganda or facts ? makes interesting reading either way - ( what´s good for the goose etc (eg) )217.83.127.249 15:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Numbers :

Japan Kills around 470 minke whales whales in the antartic each year - they plan to increase that to 900 and to add some fin and humpback whales in the antartic to the total number. So they do not " kill almost a thousand whales for ´research` - they do have a dolphin drive fishery which would knock the numbers up however, but that´s another subject entirely and has no place in this article.

Please do not rely on "media" sources in your edits - they are notoriously unreliable and biased in their own right.

Again you're jumping the gun, check the history, that was from the original article.  :) Jachin 08:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

07:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The numbers are a matter of public record (indeed they are on the iwcoffice.org website. It should be trivial to note the correct numbers with a citation - indeed the articles used to do this, and it would be a shame to make articles worse! Pcb21| Pete 09:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Done ;o)11:12, 3 November 2005

This article still seems to be strongly POV. For such a large quantity of material devoted to Japanese whaling, there is a tiny amount given to the views of the critics of the Japanese whaling programme. The only reason I can see for having such a large section devoted to Japan is because there is a lot of controversy surrounding it. Of course the best thing would be to cut this section down significantly, and include prominent mention of the controvertial nature of the subject. Certainly get rid of obviously POV wording such as "it is hypocritical and inconsistent". I might come back in a while and if no-one else has done a clean-up, I'll either attempt it myself or post "POV" and "Controversial" boilerplates on the article. Fuzzypeg 04:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you post in the IWC article as that is where any controversy arises concerning the legality of the Japanese hunt.SammytheSeal 07:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please keep the Japan section in this article concise

A detailed description of all the various allegations and counter-allegations can go the Whaling in Japan and IWC articles. Pcb21| Pete 12:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Quite agree with you Pete, but in that case, lets remove or transfer the obvious bias out of the article. For Example : In recent years, through its fisheries aid funding, the Japanese Fisheries Agency has been allegedly amassing a group of small, impoverished island states such as Tuvalu, Palau and Grenada (among many others, plus African countries such as Guinea and Benin, and even the landlocked Mongolia) to create a pro-whaling bloc in the International Whaling Commission, in an attempt to "buy" its way back to commercial whaling. Such attempts have been hampered so far by the scarcity of further sovereign nations willing to surrender to what has been called the "Yen Diplomacy".

or comments such as this " under the guise of 'scientific research' "

it´s fairly plain that the article is anti-whaling biased SammytheSeal 12:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I am happy to work with you on improving it. Remember that you may have your own biases, that are hard to recognise in yourself. For example I thought I was writing neutrally when I wrote a lot of this article (and related articles) a year or so ago. Now I think that then I was biased and not giving the whaling viewpoint a fair crack. Now I probably have some other bias :) even though I think I understand the subject pretty well. Pcb21| Pete 13:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

As an example, take a look at the BBC News article - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4417462.stm - published today about the beginning of the South Pacific season. Is the BBC neutral on this issue, in your opinion? Pcb21| Pete 13:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

No Pete, I don´t think that the correspondent that wrote that article was completely neutral - It´s a combination of (mainly )fact and (some )mis-representation. We should be striving to present just the facts in the Whaling article - loopholes, politics, gaming and who said what when don´t really have a place there. I would like/intend to remove /rewrite various sections when time allows -(much of which Mattopia has already done incidentally )SammytheSeal 11:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

While I think that Whaling in Japan and IWC are good places for the details, I don't agree that there is an anti-whaling bias. --Apyule 13:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that most of the stuff in this section is crap that should be moved somewhere else. Given that this article is an overview of whaling, the section on Japan should really provide details on the history of whaling in Japan (which is the detail that is sorely missing. Anyone who knows when whaling was first introduced, etc. would be very useful), and Japan's current desire to push for an end to the moratorium, as well as the numbers and types that it catches. The bit about Australia's opinion is just out of place (there is a Japanese section in the article that tell's all about Australia's opinion, but doesn't mention anything from the Japanese opinions). Perhaps if people want to write Australia's opinion there should be another section of the article about Anti-Whaling countries, and the actions/threats of Australia/NZ and other antiwhaling nations could be moved there. Alternatively, there could be another page created about Aus vs. Japan on the whaling issue (hopefully where arguments from both sides can be included).

I also agree with SammytheSeal that the one section about buying votes is not totally NPOV. For a start, it doesn't state which organization is asserting that Japan is buying votes. The BBC article doesn't make that assertion. I think the comment can only really stay if the source can be tracked down. It seems pretty obvious that an allegation about this by an impartial group such as a UN commitee carries far more weight than the same allegation made by an anti-whaling group.

By the same token, the edits that SammytheSeal made include similarly out of place assertions that don't belong in this section (particularly because they are about IWC). I think all of the stuff about how the IWC has turned into a political forum of pro- vs. anti-whaling countries/organizations should be moved to the IWC section. Mattopia 14:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Mattopia, Agree that the NGO vote manipulation assertions are out of place in this article, but not when the japanese vote-buying assertions are allowed to stand. Allowing one, you have to allow the other, or remove both and add to a completely new page / and or IWC article SammytheSeal 15:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to PCB21 - Apyule

Hi Pete, We actually have met once upon a time in a cold faraway place;). Yes, I try hard to keep my edits neutral or present a neutralising (opposite )point of view but it´s not the easiest of things to do when most folk rely on media as fact. I do understand the field/ subject pretty well from a professional standpoint as you might remember;). How´s about this - I´ll look over what "I" think should be changed / edited to provide a less biased article, communicate that to you for ummmmm review/discussion and we can go from there?. Be warned though, there are swathes I intend to adress/add to when I find the time;) some of which I´ll detail below in my reply to Apyule SammytheSeal 14:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

To Apyule, I´ll answer you here as opposed to your talk page so as to save repeating myself. Some anti-whaling bias ....

• " Anti-whaling groups say there is insufficient demand for even this relatively low level of whaling and that "Icelandic freezers are full with up to 40 tonnes of unsold whale meat and blubber".

Looks like a media article / NGO quote but whatever, If someone can provide independant references ..I see similar "facts" in the media even today regarding Norway´s "blubber mountain" ( which has´nt existed for a number of years )I´ll do some extra research of my own and get back to you on that one

• " In recent years, through its fisheries aid funding, the Japanese Fisheries Agency has been allegedly amassing a group of small, impoverished island states such as Tuvalu, Palau and Grenada (among many others, plus African countries such as Guinea and Benin, and even the landlocked Mongolia) to create a pro-whaling bloc in the International Whaling Commission, in an attempt to "buy" its way back to commercial whaling. Such attempts have been hampered so far by the scarcity of further sovereign nations willing to surrender to what has been called the "Yen Diplomacy".

Has no place in the whaling article - If anywhere, it should be in the Whaling in Japan article ( which incidentally, would probably be more correctly called Japanese whaling as most of their whaling operations are in the antartic ) it should also be pointed out ( as it did until you reverted it )that anti-whaling NGO´s did exactly the same in the lead up to the 1982 moratorium - and have continued to recruit anti-whaling nations into the IWC ever since. The politics or gaming in the IWC should´nt really be in the whaling article at all - they should really be in the appropriate articles ( IWC, whaling in Japan etc )

• " In 2005, the Japanese whaling fleet, under the guise of 'scientific research' "

(Sigh...) Japan conducts research under the auspices of the ICRW and has presented the results of said research to the IWC scientific committee. To allege that the hunt is commercial is simply flawed in view of the $/yen figures. It does not make a profit even when partially subsidised. (20% of total program cost in 1999 ) Here´s a quote from Dr Ray Gambell, former Secretariat of the IWC : " When the 1946 Convention under which we operate was signed, one of the major articles introduced by the USA was the provision for a government to be able to issue permits for research purposes. That has always been in the Convention and many governments over the years have caught quite large numbers of whales for research purposes but associated with that provision is whales are too valuable just to catch, measure and throw away. If you catch whales for research purposes, the requirement is that they are fully utilised and the products disposed of in a way that the government decides. In other words, the products have to be fully utilised and Japan is doing what every other government has done in previous years. It's using the whales for research, getting the research results which are sent to the Scientific Committee of the IWC and it's putting the products into the market place"

BTW Pete, it was the US who pushed to have that clause put in - they wanted to continue to hunt Sperm whales for Spermacetti oil, which was used as gyroscope lubricant.

• "The Australian government often criticizes the Japan government's actions on whaling, and threaten to initiate diplomatic and international court action against Japan. However, this is based on the fact that some of Japanese whaling is carried out in waters claimed by Australia as part of the Australian Antarctic Territory. While there is evidence that more than 400 whales have been killed in Australian Antarctic waters since 2000 by Japanese whaling vessels, the validity of claims to Antarctic territories are largely disputed internationally and have not been tested under international law."

This should also be in the whaling in Japan article

• " justified by the Norwegian industry as for scientific purposes."

Justified? It was for scientific purposes - I´d remove that.

• "Those opposed to whaling say that this export is a violation of the spirit of the IWC moratorium, which the High North Alliance says it adheres to. Commenting in June 2003, British fisheries minister Elliot Morley said "We believe the Norwegian whaling is against the spirit of the moratorium. Norway say that their commercial whaling is legal because they registered an objection when the moratorium was agreed by the commission, so under IWC rules they're allowed to continue hunting. But we think it goes against the spirit of the ban, and certainly their attempts to export the meat are illegal. They're desperate to find an export market, and that shows the whaling isn't for domestic consumption - and it's not sustainable."

Belongs elsewhere - The Norwegian hunt ( and export )is legal despite what Morley thinks - Norway conducts a sustainable hunt and their self- imposed quotas are way below what they would be allowed if the IWC finally adopted the RMS/RMP.

• "Anti-whaling campaigners say this method of killing is cruel, particularly if carried out by inexperienced whalers "

There are NO inexperienced whalers ( actually, that should read gunners ) onboard Norwegian whaling boats - there is a rigid program in place to test and check the abilities of the gunners, which they must attend yearly before the whaling season starts.( at their own cost incidentally )If they don´t pass the course, they have their gunner licence taken away. I suspect a similar program in Japan but will check. As to the rest of the " Organic growth; Method of killing " paragraph, I´d like to point out that there is NO 100% humane method of killing - the arguement that all whaling should be stopped because whales cannot be killed humanely is ridiculous - following that arguement, we´d all be vegetarians..

I´m not going to go anywhere near the subject of loopholes in the IWC at the moment. way too much work;)

Okey dokey, enough for now ;) comments? SammytheSeal 14:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese section - reorg

I reorganized the Japanese section into more of a historical time-line. I hope this makes it NPOV enough that everyone is happy. There is already a huge section on vote-buying allegations in the International Whaling Commission page, so I added a link to that, and removed from this page. Mattopia 16:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the vote buying aspect is pertinent enough to be covered in this article, or at least mentioned. Along with the vehement protestations of Australia against the Japanese illegally fishing in Australian coastal waters as we speak, for the fourth day, with calls from the Prime Minister stating, "Over twenty years of whaling and still no research papers published, scientific research, yeah .. right." (Sydney Morning Herald, 24/12/2005).

Well, If your Prime Minister would bother to read the article on Wikipedia, he´s find this link to papers presented to the IWC scientific committee. http://luna.pos.to/whale/icr_papers.html SammytheSeal 08:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I fear the recent 'reorganisation' has made it too NPOV to the point where it is POV and not reflective of the abhorrent distaste of humanity. Whaling is one of the worlds most universally agreed upon 'evils' as such by all people except a minority of countries that still practise it.

Please try and avoid tarring "all people" with the same brush. I don´t find it "evil" at all and I don´t come from a whaling country either.SammytheSeal 08:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to point out that had Wikipedia been originated two hundred years ago, I would like to think POV or not, when slavery was begining to be phased out of the world it would have had the same outlook as enlightened and educated fellows and not be 'worried about npov' and instead detail it factually with no sugar coating. 211.30.80.121 06:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you equating slavery with whaling?SammytheSeal 08:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recipe link

A link to a whale meat recipe page is not needed in this article. It adds nothing to the content of the article and would be like having a link to elk recipes in the hunting article. Plus, this is an encyclopedia, not a web directory. --Apyule 12:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re : The economic argument

This section : " In particular, not a single country in the Southern Hemisphere is currently whaling or intends to, and proposals to permanently forbid whaling South of the Equator are defended by the abovementioned developing countries plus Peru, Uruguay, Australia, and New Zealand, which strongly object to the continuation of Japanese whaling in the Antarctic under the guise of " scientific catches".

Is´nt strictly true, Indonesia (Lamalera) has a small Sperm whale hunt and small numbers of killer whales, beaked whales and small cetaceans are taken, last time I looked, Indonesia is in the Southern Hemisphere.SammytheSeal 23:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

If there are nations that object to uteriorly motivated 'scientific catches' they should force the US to lift extortion of sanctions against Japan if it should lodge an objection against the IWC moratorium but they don't seem to care (mind you these nations' governments have a long tradition of imposing voodoo economic policies). Copue441 14:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section from Whaling in Japan deleted

I edited the following because it was biased in its point of view, calling non-whaling governments hypocritical and written in a style that was very hard to follow (I would assume that the author was not a native speaker of English). It also included several conjugational errors:

The Japanese government point out that IWC regulation require whale meat to be fully utilised once it's been caught. Moreover, it is hypocritical and inconsistent, on one hand, to insist that scientific evidence on whale population is inaccurate and/or insufficient in term of commercial whaling while at the same time insist otherwise in case of scientific whaling, which Japanese government says is needed in order to ascertain the sustainability of any commercial whaling operations, and to provide evidence on repealing the moratorium.

to this:

The Japanese government points out that IWC regulations require that whale meat be utilised upon the completion of research. The Japanese government insists that it be allowed to continue research into whale populations and breeding habits in order to refute claims that commercial whaling threatens the sustainability of the populations. Bobby1011 07:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The accusation of hypocracy is clearly attributed to come from the Japanese government. It is not NPOV to censor view which has clear POV attribution. I would say better disambiguation is to differentiate the legal case (iwc regulation) and moral case (accusation of hypocracy). Moreover, the Japanese side is allowed to hunt whales on scientific ground under iwc regulation whether anti whaling side likes it or not. Therefore, to say "Japanese government insists" is slanting the presentation to make it looks like it is a POV of prowhaling side.

The Japanese government point out that hunting of whale for research purpose is specifically sanctioned under IWC regulation and IWC regulations specifically require that whale meat be fully utilised upon the completion of research. Furthermore it argue that it is hypocritical and inconsistent, on one hand, to insist that scientific evidence on whale population is inaccurate and/or insufficient in the context of commercial whaling while at the same time insist that the scientific whaling is uncecessarily.

Feel free to rebut two different arguments with proper POV attribution 82.21.35.176

[edit] Japan's price of whale meat

I think it's important to note that the Japanese younger generation do not like whale meat. Large numbers of Japanese are not buying it, as the price drop reflects. The older generations of Japanese are not buying it. I think it's possible to add the price of whale meat as a encyclopedic fact to reflect this change in Japanese culture, and to whaling as a whole. --Masssiveego 06:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Massiveego, there were a couple of reasons that I removed the price reference. The first is that the price given is the wholesale price. There is no way you can simply convert the number to $US and compare it to the retail price of beef in the US to get a fair comparison of the price. If you wanted to get a fairer comparison of the price, it would be best to compare supermarket prices of whale in Japan to the supermarket prices of beef or chicken. However, retail prices of whale meat are still so expensive that most Japanese supermarkets don't even consider stocking it, so it is fairly hard to draw a true comparison.

The other problem is the comments by some Japanese saying thay dislike whale meat. It is obvious that some Japanese would not like the taste of whale meat, no different to some people disliking the taste of beef or chicken. It is POV to include comments by the people that dislike the taste and exclude comments by people that like the taste. I wouldn't care if comments from both sides (like the taste and dislike the taste) were included, but I think it would start an edit war over a completely subjective sensory perception. The idea that young people in Japan do not like whale meat is crap. Its not hard for a reporter to walk down the street and find a young Japanese who hates whale meat, but it equally not hard for a reporter to walk down the street and find a young Japanese who loves whale meat. That kind of anecdotal evidence is POV. It needs some kind of more scientific polling.Mattopia 09:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I find this kind of local info too detailed for the general whaling page. We have a Whaling in Japan article. Why not put it there? And as Mattopia says, it has to be based on proper statistics, not just what answers a western journalist in Tokyo got on the street. Actually, I think the Japan section is big enough as it is. Because of the controversy around Japanese whaling, we have to be careful so this section doesn't grow out of control. It should suffice with one paragraph on each of the following topics: history, present scientific whaling, critisism and quotas. Details, including the Australian Antarctic Territory paragraph, should go to the Whaling in Japan article. Matt77 15:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Whale meat taste like any other meat to be honest. The reason the price of whale meat was kept so high was much to do with hightened demand generated by the fuss. In Japan, the issue of whaling is sort of regarded as dying out. Even in the West, it is getting harder and harder to argue for the prohibition of hunting for mink whale, for example. If the moratorium continue, then that would give justification for scientific whaling. So one way or another, it pretty much have zero impact on whaling activities. The support for whaling still remain high. Just that public is not that interested in the issue anymore, which is reflected in the price of whale. Whale still remain cheap meat from the cost of production POV though. To be honest, the change in attitude is reflected in the wikipedia article as well. FWBOarticle 23:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Although whaling isn't the most appetizing profession, it still deserves a neutral article. I see some blatant anti-whaling stuff in the tagged section of this article. Just ignore this if I'm being a moron. -63.229.27.236 01:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] minke whale's diet

A minke whale's daily diet consists of 10 kilograms of fish per kilogram of body mass

It doesn't seem to be correct. Even the very small animals don't eat 10 times their mass per day, and the bigger the animal the smaller the ratio. Taw 12:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Taw, you are right. The 10 kg per kg body mass must refer to the annual intake, not the daily. --Arnejohs 13:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] News

Please read and integrate this articol from independent: http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article358190.ece It deals with the oncoming Japan control of IWC.

And did you know that wikipedia isn't supposed to be a soapbox? :D Vapour

[edit] Organically grown?

Whale meat is "Organically Grown?" That's wrong on so many levels... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.144.105.220 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 6 June 2006.

Yeah, it is. It makes whales sound like a plant crop, rather than wild animals. --Apyule 12:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Want to call them farmed instead? ;)Or "game" ? If you can come up with a better "description" then go ahead.."Organically Grown" fits better than anything I can think of offhand ... in many european countries, Minke whale meat would be classified as "Bio-meat" - strange but true ... SammytheSeal 12:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US whaling history

The comments that the US has "killed more whales in its history than all other nations in the world" needs checking and citing. I have added the relevant templates. I would have considered moving the relevant text here for discussion, but I suspect that might get into people just reverting the comments back into the article without discussion.

I have removed the unsubstantiated assertion. Feel free to provide a source and replace it. Isopropyl 13:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Whaling vs. Pro-Conversation

To whoever is trying to anonymously change the term "anti-whaling" to "pro-conservation", can you stop it? Some of the main advocates on the "anti-whaling" side are national governments. They are not conservation groups. While many conservation groups are part of the anti-whaling side of the argument, they are only part of the anti-whaling side. It seems fairly NPOV to me to have "pro-whaling" and "anti-whaling" as the opposing sides in an argument against whaling. Perhaprs if you want to call the anti-whaling side "pro-conservation", then the pro-whaling side could be called the "pro-sustainable management" side. Neither term mentions the word whaling, though, which is a bit of a wank when that is the central topic. Mattopia 08:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Pro-whaling side also claim to be pro conservation, too. Vapour

[edit] Whale Meat and Environmental Toxins

I´m going to research actual figures and facts before I edit this section - although there is no doubt about toxins in whales, in many cases, they are concentrated in the blubber, with much lower ( and in some countries acceptable ) concentrations in the meat itself. I´ll link to the relevant papers once ( and if ) I edit SammytheSeal 12:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, "whale meat" is the generic term most often used to describe whale food products. See [1].

By making a distinction between "meat" and "blubber" you are obfuscating the general danger of consuming whale food products.

Further research on the subject indicates that most scientific references refer to whale blubber in the case of environmental toxins in minke whales - there is no question that in TOOTHED whale meat - such toxin levels are reported to be high - but as the focus is on minke whales in whaling for the most part, I have changed the paragraph to reflect this .. here is one Scientific cite [2]

I will add more as and when I can dig them out of the net - feel free to reference scientific cites opposing this view SammytheSeal 08:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, both the meat and the blubber are consumed. Many subsistence cultures consume blubber, whether fresh or dried; in Japan, on the other hand, the muscle meat is preferred. Cf. [3]. --Graham^talk/mail/e 08:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It is completely incorrect to say that muscle meat is preferred in Japan. In fact, blubber, fatty whale "bacon", and whale organ meat are popular. Please see the peer-reviewed scientific study on whale food products in Japan [4].

I just self-reverted; I was misreading your comment to refer to all consumed whale products, when in fact (I think) you were referring only to the fact that studies of toxicity have centered on blubber. Sorry 'bout that. --Graham^talk/mail/e 08:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Graham - yes, most of the studies ( actually all that I have found to date ) center on blubber contamination - toxic levels in minke whale meat Seem to be under acceptable limits - toothed whale meat is another story howver - I will try and edit to reflect this in the corresponding article(s) ..SammytheSeal 08:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Since this is a brief statement on the presence of toxins in whale, you should avoid obfuscating the issue which is that whale meat *can* contain dangerous toxins, not necessarily that it *does* in all species. If you would like to suggest that whale meat is safe for certain species and not safe for others, then the onus is upon you to write a more detailed summary with appropriate citations to back up your claims. Most reports I've seen find toxins in both meat and blubber. By toxins I mean not only PCB's but also mercury. You have re-phrased the section in such a way to imply that whale meat is safe, which is simply irresponsible given some of the reported findings.

I am curently n the process of Beefing up ( excuse the pun ) the paragraph on the subject - as it stands / stood, the paragraph implied that all whale meat was unsafe and a danger to eat ..I´ll leave it be until I can cite the scientific/government relevant sources and rewrite the paragraph reflecting which species in which whaling nations and what parts of the species are safe to eat or not - fair enough? SammytheSeal 19:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

To be responsible, any statement in the Wikipedia has to highlight the danger of whale food products. Some whale meat may be safer than others, however the majority of samples studied have dangerous toxicity [5]. It would have to be a rather long article to given a definitive guide to what is relatively safe and what is dangerous. Are you really in a position to write that article? Furthermore, it has been found that the whale meat sold in Japanese markets is often mislabelled. So someone who thinks they are consuming Antarctice Minke muscle meat, might actually be getting some dolphin, with a nice cocktail of PCBs and mercury. Then there's the school lunches ... Would you really want your kids to be forced to eat whale meat?

" To be responsible, any statement in the Wikipedia has to highlight the danger of whale food products " If you claim this, then you should trawl wikipedia and edit all animal foodstuff to include toxicity levels. What is so different about whale from other animal meat? Nobody is claiming that there are no toxins in whale meat - the level of toxins are however, relevant for the different species hunted / utilised. Some products are ´safe ´ to eat, others are not, depending on which species and where - one cannot simply declare that all whale products are toxic and ´unsafe ´worldwide ( unless of course there is an anti whaling agenda behind the claim or they actually are ) If you feel so strongly about the subject then by all means rewrite the article to reflect the differences ( if any ) in the major whaling countries - this is what I am trying to do - as I have already stated, I will not touch the relevant paragraph until I am ready to rewrite it to reflect this myself - however, I do not intend to let misleading edits stand until then.

Currently, the article states this : Whaling is dangerous not only to the whales themselves but can also be dangerous to the people who eat the red meat, blubber, or organs of many species. Studies of several species have shown that whale meat products often contains dangerously high levels of environmental toxins such as PCBs, mercury, and dioxins [10]. [11] and [12]

Studies on the red meat and blubber of Long finned pilot whales in the Faroe islands show high toxic levels and studies have shown that this has had a detrimental effect on those who eat the red meat and blubber.[citation needed] However, studies of minke whales hunted in both the North Atlantic and the southern ocean have shown that the red meat of some minke whale individuals have levels of toxicity below recommended limits, with the Antarctic minke having the lowest levels of contamination.[citation needed]

In general, studies have shown that levels of some environmental toxins in toothed whale products are higher than corresponding levels in baleen whales, reflecting the fact that toothed whales feed at a higher trophic level than baleen whales in the food chain. However, other contaminants such as the organichloride pesticides [[HCH} and [HCB]] have comparable levels in both toothed and baleen species, including minke whales. In Norway, another whaling nation, only the red meat of minke whales is eaten and studies indicate that average toxicity levels conform to national limits for toxicity.'' That looks fine to me for the moment as it is reasonably NPOV, albeit lacking in detail - any additions/edits should also be NPOV - the question here is not whether whales should be hunted - it is whether the various whale products are ´safe ´to eat in the various counties where whaling is practiced. SammytheSeal 13:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is another - from Greenpeace International of all people ;O) .. [6].

I quote the Conclusion of the rather long paper :

" Conclusions Whale blubber is contaminated with various halogen-organic contaminants.The most conservative guidance value for tolerable intake of PCB is exceeded by consumption of only 0,05 g of the highest contaminated blubber. Even the least conservative value is exceeded by consumption of only 16 g of the blubber of the highest contamination level. Food limit values for PCB are exceeded up to 90-times.The most conservative guidance value for tolerable intake of DDT is exceeded by consumption of only 2,3 g of the highest contaminated blubber. Even the least conservative value is exceeded by consumption of 45 g of the blubber of the highest contamination level. Food limit values for DDT are exceeded 3-times (WHO, FDAvalue) to 333-times (EU-value for fat). The contaminations in whale meat (only data for CPs and PBDE) do not exceed guidance values for tolerable intake. These values are also not exceeded by CPs or PBDE in blubber. "

Nuff said ..SammytheSeal 08:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

However it was found by the joint British-US-Japan study of whale meat products that levels of HCH and HCB were comparable for north atlantic minke whales and toothed whales. Therefore the statement that contamination is lower for minke whales, while true for some contaminants, is misleading and should be removed. -CAT

"Whaling is dangerous not only to the whales themselves but can also be dangerous to the people who eat the red meat, blubber, or organs of many species."

"Whaling is dangerous to the whale". True but the expression is biased in favour of anti-whaling point because one is implying that eating whaling meat is "fatal". Moreover, I don't think Greenpeace is a reliable reference to scientific fact. Stick to science publication. "For sensitive consumers and those with high-level consumption (e.g., whaling communities), exposure to mercury and to a lesser extent PCBs from certain whale blubber and bacon and striped dolphin liver products could lead to chronic health effects. The Japanese community should therefore exercise a precautionary approach to the consumption of such foods in excess, particularly by high-risk members of the population." [7] Vapour

[edit] Historical statistics

I know this is a matter of controversy, but it is also a matter of research, but it would be nice to have some data on the numbers of whales harvested per year over time. I have seen some numbers cited in policy books, and they might be highly speculative or controversial, but it would be useful to include them. This is what I was looking for when I referenced this article. I've seen some numbers in this area used in discussion energy policy, and in particular, the end of (cheap) oil. Tied to this data is the market demand for whales, for which I will add another section.

Mulp 05:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Market forces driving whaling

As I noted above, I have seen selective statistics used in the discussion of such policy matters like oil depletion. In one of the books on oil policy, the history of whaling was discussed related to the market for whale oil as used for lighting. The competition was tallow candles, with one having an advantage due to smoke/smell, details are vague. Other alternatives esisted, but those were listed as the precursors to the initial boom in the oil market, which when combined with the depletion of whale stocks which was driving up the price of whale oil, resulted in a rapid switch over to petroleum.

I believe a similar situation occurred with one of the other major drivers of whaling demand, balen, with plastics being developed, plus a change in fashions. This might have been driven by the war.

I came to this article hoping to find an "energy" related set of statistics or similar useful "quotes" for an essay. If I can find some sources in my library, I'll endeavor to return and add them...

Mulp 05:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whaling songs

Not enough information about whaling songs. - FrancisTyers · 23:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Look here. Matt77 06:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I assume that FrancisTyers was asking about songs about whaling, not songs made by whales. I'm no expert, but is the topic significantly different from Sea shanty? A subheading could be added there and referenced here. Or, if the topic is sufficiently large, by all means make a new article and reference it from both pages. --Graham^talk/mail/e 08:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, this is what I was lamenting about. Perhaps a redirect should be made from Whaling song and Whaling songs to Sea shanty. I'm not completely up on on this particular genre, so I'm not sure if this would be appropriate or not. Welcome input. - FrancisTyers · 09:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The arguments for and against whaling

It appear that someone has been stealthly deleting counter argument presented by pro-whaling side. It takes two to tango. Anyone who is anti whaling are free to present their POV. Leave the other side of POV alone. Vapour

[edit] Whaling by pirate

I have done proper citation and reference of the sources. The original papers do not make accusation of "pirate whaling". It's an obvious spin for anti whaling side. This "pirate whaling" does not have proper source except Earthtrust thingy which incidentally does not have citation of source. I will delete the section heading and transfer the content to conservation argument section. By the way, Baker's second paper which I cited mention illegal whaling by Soviet, which in his view, done siginificant damage to whale stock. I suggest that someone who has time would expand "Russian whaling" section instead. Vapour

[edit] IUCN Red List

Someone appear to add his/her own personal reseach to IUCN Red List. There was no extinct whale species listed before. Now someone include population of gray whale without any explanation or citation. Please justify one's inclusion by citing from IUCN list. Vapour

I deleted reference to Gray Whale on "Extinct" section of the RedList. Citation was wrong population group of gray whale. Plus, it is not kosher to add one's own interpretation of RedList.Vapour

I restored the extinction of the Atlantic grey whales. On the IUCN Red List page for the grey whale, it says Habitat and Ecology: Gray Whales are endemic to the North Pacific Ocean, having become extinct in the North Atlantic more than 150 years ago. That's good enough for me. There's also a whole chapter about the extinction of the Atlantic grey whales in Farley Mowat's Sea of Slaughter. I think it is important to make the point that there were grey whales in the Atlantic into historical times. As to whether that was at the hands of whalers, as Mowat maintains, or not, I can't answer, though I imagine that it is entirely true, given the almost-certain extinction of the North Atlantic right whales ongoing at the moment. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 09:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"Original research...includes unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation.""

We are supposed to present IUCN's Red List as it is. The fact is that North Atlantic population of Gray whale is not in the RedList. It is IUCN which decide which particular population group of species are genetic or conservation wise important enough to be listed separately. And it is not for us to argue that IUCN would have listed Atlantic gray whale separatedly had it not gone extinct or that Atlantic gray whale is genetically distinct. Listing North Atlantic stock in the table of IUCN's Red List would amount to adding interpretation as well as advocacy. That is why it is more NPOV to mention the extinction of North Atlantic stock just below the table but not in the table. If I wanted to spin for pro whaling, I would have argued that gray whales "as a species" is not endengered because Northeast Pacific population of gray whale is not. Vapour

Hi Vapour -- I don't think I'm "interpreting" anything. I'm sure that you know that the IUCN Red List is primarily based around extant organisms or animals that died out in recent historical times. It doesn't discuss moas or elephantbirds either, but there's little question that humans exterminated them. But, if you still want a scientific reference about the Atlantic greys, then how about Dating Remains of Gray Whales from the Eastern North Atlantic by P. J. Bryant, Journal of Mammalogy, Vol. 76, No. 3 (Aug., 1995), pp. 857-861. The abstract ends with the following:

These data together with a similar range of dates for specimens from the western North Atlantic as well as limited historical records, support the view that the gray whale existed in the Atlantic Ocean until the 17th century. The populations on both sides of the North Atlantic apparently declined during a period of active coastal whaling, supporting the suggestion that it was extirpated by early whalers.

I'm not a mammal expert, but I am a palaeontologist, and I think it is pretty widely accepted that humans were either a factor or the main factor in the extinction of these coastal whales. So while I agree with you that the IUCN isn't explicit about the Atlantic greys in why they died out, I don't really think including them in the table is anything other than scientifically sound or reasonable. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 21:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You are not making a Wikipedia argument. The "truthiness" about the extinction of Atlantic population of greys whales or the cause of such extinction are irrelevant in wikipedia. I'm merely pointing out the fact that Atlantic population of Gray Whale is not in the extinction category of IUCN RedList. Just running "search" in IUCN website would affirm this fact. If RedList doesn't make something explicit, then making that explict in wikipedia is an act of interpretation (original research) on your part that such fact/idea is implicit in the RedList. Mentioning Atlantic population of Gray Whale on the footnote more accurately reflect the way IUCN present the information. You are free to cite other sources about extinction of atlantic population of Gray whales or the cause of it. But mixing your sources with IUCN's RedList would amount to an original reseach because it is a synthesis of verifiable sources. Vapour

I'm sorry, I must be missing something. On the IUCN page, it mentions, explicity, that Gray Whales are endemic to the North Pacific Ocean, having become extinct in the North Atlantic more than 150 years ago. In other words, the pages says that this species is present in the Pacific, extinct in the Atlantic (as opposed to never having lived in the Atlantic). What more is required? I think you're using the letter of the law to defeat the spirit. Wikipedia is meant to have verifiable data from reliable sources, as opposed to being a bunch of personal speculations and commentaries. But, in this case, it's clear the IUCN page (and the book itself) comment on the Atlantic whales, and these are considered by scientists in the field to have become extinct in relatively modern times. So what's the problem? I'm not adding anything not on the IUCN, and I'm certainly not expounding a theory of my own, merely including extra information from the IUCN page that had been overlooked before. What's the big deal? Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 00:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

What more is required? An entry in the IUCN list for the North Atlantic Gray Whale population/stock. We present the table as A complete list of whale conservation statuses as listed by The World Conservation Union (IUCN). North Atlantic Gray Whale is not in the IUCN Extinct category, so neither should it be in our table. Noone is saying that your info should not be mentioned (actually, it would be wrong not to mention it), but let's do it in the right place. If we choose to present the table as the IUCN Red List, then let's stick to their classification system, and add footnotes as appropriate. Matt77 02:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Above the table here it actually says: Note that, in the case of the blue and gray whales, the IUCN distinguishes the statuses of various populations. These populations, while not regarded as separate species, are considered sufficiently important in term of conservation. So my point is that the Atlantic greys were definitely a population, and though they aren't listed as a unique, extinct category in the IUCN lists, they are still mentioned in the Pacific grey section, and the only reason they don't have their own entry is the same as with moas and mammoths: because they went extinct in a time period before than covered by the Red Data lists. Excluding the Atlantic greys is from the table is removing useful information from a place where it makes a logical, clear point simply to force the table to fit a narrow definition of Wikipedia rules. Keeping the Atlantic greys in the table isn't a nonsense entry or a partisan point, it isn't ading something that isn't in the IUCN table, and it isn't bad science. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 09:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you considered about the existence of alternative interpretations such as that Atlantic population was not "sufficiently important in term of conservation". Or that IUCN scientists feel that they have already bend scientific objectivity too far for anti whaling nations by making "population" exemption. If I take partisan pro whaling position, I would delete mention of blue and gray whales "population" from the table because these are "definitely a population" not species, and therefore, it is misleading and not usefull to the debate.

This is why wikipedia is not about the truth but attribution of opinions and facts of "other people". IUCN, for whatever reason, does not list Atlantic population of Gray Whales in the extinction category. Expressing one's opinion as if it is from IUCN RedList is not right in wikipedia even if such opinion is true. Vapour

And this is also why academics and scientists find Wikipedia frustrating -- it isn't about facts but consensus and rules. I'm not an expert on whales, so I won't labour the point, and will happily concur to what you think is best. But hard as I try, I have to admit that I find my enthusiasm for Wikipedia declining... Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 17:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It's other way round. Academics find wikipedia flustrating because wikipedia's peer review process cannot be vetted, and as a result, attribution and differentiation of sources (i.e. literature review) are not rigorous enough. Atlantic population is not in the extinction category of Redlist. Wikipedia or any encycropedia or academic paper should state it as such. Doing otherwise would be unacademic. The fact that we manage to resolve our dispute show how sensible wikipedia NPOV policies are. Moreover, you are free to mention the extinction of Atlantic population of Gray Whales. I might find reference that Gray Whales as a species is not endengered. I've read it somewhere that endengered status of sei and fin whale are disputed, so I'm quite sure that someone will eventually add this info as well. Adding verifiable information is always good in wikipedia. As Faux News say, "We Report. You Decide." :D Vapour

[edit] NPOV

I'm inclined to delete the line "With ongoing marine pollution from large industrial nations, it is possible that one day, the Faroese people will be forced to go without this local, free range, organic and culturally meaningful food resource, creating an environmental as well as social disaster." It sounded biased on first glance, and upon searching could not find anywhere evidence to show that banning the hunt would cause social disaster, much less envirnmental. Sameerkale 19:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Flag

This article is so hideously point-of-view based to pro-whaling, I was surprised there weren't literal adverts for whale meat on the page. I'm amazed that the pro-whaling nutjobs have surpassed the anti-whaling nutjobs with their policing skills of this article; however let's try and keep things neutral. IMHO this article needs to be scrapped and re-written, it's hideously POV oriented. One fundamental line that isn't anywhere on the page is that 'the average citizen' of any first world country openly condemns whaling, flat out, non-debatable, non-negotiable and you're an ass if you think otherwise (okay, maybe not an ass, but definitely detached from reality). Furthermore, whilst that is being said, there's also the cultural aspects of whaling, which are already addressed thoroughly, yet need to be retained. Yet realistically, culture aside, if it weren't for that I'm pretty sure the anarchronistic employ would be sent to davey jones' locker once and for all. This article doesn't reflect the reality of the situation and seems to be maintained and edited by pro-whaling zealots. Not on guys, this is an encyclopedia, put yourself aside, put your views aside, write neutral and write for the ages! 211.30.71.59 15:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

To the australian user 211.30.71.59.

Your POV is showing ;O)

RE: One fundamental line that isn't anywhere on the page is that 'the average citizen' of any first world country openly condemns whaling, flat out, non-debatable, non-negotiable and you're an ass if you think otherwise

Very neutral POV don´t you think?

RE : Not on guys, this is an encyclopedia, put yourself aside, put your views aside, write neutral and write for the ages!

That´s what most of the serious editors are trying to do - present a NPOV - if you can come up with cites to back your claims then by all means, rewrite it - try putting your obvious anti-whaling bias to one side first please though ;)SammytheSeal 19:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

To the anonymous user 211.30.71.59. Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute says: "Please note: The above label is meant to indicate that a discussion is ongoing, and hence that the article contents are disputed and volatile. If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasings that are problematic." Could you please be a bit more specific in your critisism on this article. Is the whole article POV or only certain section(s). What is missing? An explicit condemnation of whaling? Sorry, I hope you agree that such a thing doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Or more info on the world opinion (or opinion in different countries/regions)? By all means, if you can find such info, please put it in. Or are there material here that breaks Wikipedia policies and guidelines? Please point it out. I can only repeat SammytheSeal's invitation to work with us to improve this article Matt77 03:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, given that 211.30.71.59's only specific comment on what is wrong with the article is that: One fundamental line that isn't anywhere on the page is that 'the average citizen' of any first world country openly condemns whaling, flat out, non-debatable, non-negotiable and you're an ass if you think otherwise, and given that Japan and Norway are both first world countries, I'm going to remove the POV flag from the page. If someone (anyone) thinks the page is POV, they can put the flag back on the condition that they say what they think is wrong with the article. Without specific information on what people consider to be POV, there is no way to fix it. Mattopia 09:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

A gallup poll conducted in the 1990's (I apologize for not having the details in front of me, but it was entitled "US Public Attitudes towards whaling", one of the authors/researchers was Dr. Milton Freeman) determined that the majority of AMERICANS had no problem with contemporary whaling, provided it was done sustainably. The study is available on-line I believe, perhaps through a link on the High North Alliance web site. Hardly a first world majority against whaling: the complete opposite, in fact.

I found it. Just google "Gallup" and "whaling". I will create new section. Vapour

[edit] Conversation status: Addition

I added a paragraph which has been raised by numerous sources here in Iceland. With legimate corrections it says:

Some North Atlantic states has argued that fin whales should not be listed as endangered anymore and criticize the list for being inaccurate.[citation needed] IUCN has recorded studies showing that more than 40,000 individuals are present in the North Atlantic Ocean around Greenland, Iceland, and Norway.[12] As there is no information about fin whales in areas outside of the Northern Atlantic they still hold the status of being endangered.

My problem is that i haven't been able to find reliable first hand source for the first sentence, mainly because the published work that i based this paragraph on is just like this sentence, not accurate on who have stated it. I ask if this could stand like it is until adequate refernces are to be found.--Siggiari 13:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Japanese government hunt fin whale arguing that it is not endengered. I read their statement in Japanese. Unfortunately, Japanese newsmedia do not permanently achive their news on their website. Vapour

It could have been sei or both sei and fin. Sorry. :(Vapour

[edit] Factual error

"The primary species hunted is the minke whale, the smallest of the baleen whales." (section 2: Modern whaling)

This is incorrect, Pygmy Right Whale is smaller. The Minke is the smallest of the rorquals, but even so it should be noted that the term Minke Whale applies to two different species. --Anshelm '77 17:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead section

I took a crack at creating a neutral lead section. The present lead section is based on the structure of the article per Wikipedia:Lead_section. Given the heated debate over this topic, each change to the lead section needs to be justified on this talk page using one or more of the guidlines set out in Wikipedia:Lead_section. If you do not justify your change to the lead section (i) on this talk page (ii) using one or more of the guidlines set out in Wikipedia:Lead_section, your change will be reverted.-- Jreferee 16:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phanly - Amended Intro

Hi Phanly,

Regarding " The past extinction of many whale species and the current endangered status of seven of the 13 great whales [8] has set up a heated debate over the value of whaling in modern society. At present, commercial whaling is banned by the IWC, but this ban is opposed by a significant minority of the members. "

Please elaborate on this " past extinction of many whale species " - Which species? Aside from the possible extinction of the Bajii .. that´s it - Atlantic Grey whales are thought to be extinct but grey whales as a species are doing just fine - if you mean sub-species or local populations then say so and provide cites and references.

The IWC shenanigans and the associated politics is already well covered - As for the "significant minority" comment, well, the minority was the majority at the last IWC meeting resulting in the ST. Kitts and Nevis declaration.... It´s fine and well if you personally are anti whaling - but the article should be NPOV - and factual... regards SammytheSeal 22:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conservation status

Anybody feel up to changing the IUCN classifications table? ( I don´t trust myself to fiddle with the table )The IUCN has downlisted a number of Marine mammals in January [9] SammytheSeal 23:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems like the HNA have announced prematurely - the IUCN still has not announced officially - When it does, there will be a fair amount of editing to do in related articles ( endangered mammals and so forth )SammytheSeal 07:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whale Intelligence

Hello, yesterday, I added two recent references on the topic of whale intelligence, while they by no means form a consensus, as they are recent and from reliable scientific sources, I thought they might add value to the page.Akhampton 10:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I radically edited this section, leaving these sources, cutting out repetition, and removing un-sourced statements that referred to specific experiments. There is a page on whale intelligence, so this section should just be about intelligence as it applied to eating animals, and this section should be short. I hope everybody likes it, I'd love if someone could add more sources or further neaten up the grammar and organization. Enuja 03:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest adding a reference for the claim about pigs, otherwise that section smells of POV to me. Some if your edits seem a bit weasaly and origonal research to me as well, for instance this section:

"It is important to discriminate between 'intelligence' and other factors that may affect the ability of the animal to experience pain and suffering, such as the possession of the complex central nervous system all mammals possess."

Without references, how is this not origonal research?

I wasnt going to revert your edits, but with some thought I have decided to. The previous version is not nessisarily better, but is less POV I think. Well, no, they both stink really as I look at them more. I am still reverting your edit for now though and would like to see some references and discussion here. Russeasby 04:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I want references, too! However, I did not add any information at all. That sentence you mention; it was already there, only with an additional statement that I know to be incorrect (it implied that some mammals do not have complex nervous systems). I only removed information and repetition. How can removing repetition be bad because it isn't cited? I also think it would be worthless to try to add citations to messy and repetitive text. I've been trying to attribute opinions to one side or the other, so we've got uncited instead of uncited and POV language. One of my basic ideas is that the more concise and short something is, the easier it is to fix. Please, please, fix any POV problems, and add citations to the shorter version! Please don't revert just because my version isn't perfect; I suspect that it looked worse to you because it's easier to read the whole thing. Shorter makes the facts (cited or not, true or false) stand out, and that's a good thing.Enuja 04:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm really glad you agreed that my edit was constructive, if not perfect. Would you mind reverting that section (and that section only, as I did the same thing to "economic arguments") to my version, or your version of my version, so it doesn't look like we are edit warring? Enuja 06:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, since Russeaby didn't reverse his revert in over a week, I went ahead cleaned up the section again. I used almost exactly the same text, although I read the sources and changed the text to better reflect source #33. I'm not a big fan of source #34; the article appears to be an anti-whaling piece which might or might not be accurately reflecting a peer-reviewed scientific article. I can't tell because the original article isn't linked or cited.Enuja 06:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fishing

Hello, yesterday I added a reference to a recent article from the BBC regarding the decline in fish stocks. As it provides several reasons for the dramtic decline in fish stocks, such as pollution and improved fishing techniques, I thought that it would be an appropriate addition to that discussion.Akhampton 10:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pengo revert

I reverted " The primary reason now given for whaling, especially by Japan, is that it is required as part of a cetacean research program. "

Japan is the only country whaling under SC permit - all others are either commercial hunts or indigenous hunts. Iceland recently ended their SC permit hunting and went over to a purely commercial hunt. The statement is patently false and misleading SammytheSeal 14:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Economic Argument

I just did the same thing to this sub-section as I did to the Whale Intelligence subsection. I added absolutely no information. I simply tried to make it more concise, and to clearly be neutral by attributing arguments to one group or another, although, without any sources, I couldn't attribute arguments to particular people. Yes, this section needs sources. I removed the general "clean-up" tag and replaced it with a "sources needed" tag. I think it will be much easier to improve this shorter version, so I urge everyone to mercilessly edit the new version instead of reverting to an older version. I did remove quotes; it appears to me that the attribution of those quotes had been turned to a hidden note of a dead webpage, and the LA times doesn't have the article any more. Also, the presence of long quotes didn't seem very productive in this section. Enuja 05:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IUCN Table

I've been trying to clean up this article. As I scroll around on the page, this table is really big and awkward and in the way. So I fiddled around a bit; what do you all think of these versions?

If you want the Data Deficient column, here [10] is the version with all of the information. I simply removed the rows for Species, Subspecies and Subpopulation/Stock, and put them into the columns so that the data would stack and not have empty spaces in middle of the table. I also made the Lower Risk (Conservation Dependent) column wider (by the messy expedient of an underscore between Conservation_Dependent; is there a better way of making columns wider?) to fit its data in less vertical space.

Here [11] is the above version minus the 'Data Deficient column and reshuffling Subpopulation/Stock into Subpopulation or Stock, making it fit better. I prefer this version. What do you all think? Married to empty space? Need straight lines? Think this is easier to read? Enuja 07:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History & Modern & Country entries

The United States and Japan have entries in both the History of Whaling and in the Modern Whaling section. To reduce redundancy, I propose we keeping the main section of history of whaling, have a Whaling in Various Countries section with existing countries, and then have a Bycatch and Illegal Trade (or maybe Current International Status including bycatch and illegal trade). What do you all think? Is it worth for redundancy reduction to kill the Modern Whaling section and parse its sections out? Enuja 08:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)