Talk:Dolphin drive hunting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Dolphin drive hunting has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
WikiProject Cetaceans
 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.
Cetaceans Portal
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance within WikiProject Cetaceans.

Contents

[edit] Criticism section quote

Many are also sceptical about the intelligence of dolphins, saying that they can just be taught tricks like dogs. -- This statement is clearly wrong, based on other information about Dolphins in Wikipedia, the scientific articles quoted in Dolphin Intelligence and from other sources. The fishermen may still repeat it, but it should not be included in an encyclopedic article not even as quotation *unless appropriate comment is provided*. User:Hhanke

Added a note BabyNuke 21:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whale species

I'd appreciate it if someone could confirm that the animals in the second photo are indeed Northern Bottlenose whales. I'm not 100% sure myself. The filename says pilot whale, but I believe that is incorrect as they have a more blunt "nose". BabyNuke 22:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

It's a nice article. However, there is one copyediting that should be done, before I say that this is a good article. This is actually related with criterion 1 of WP:WIAGA about well-written article.

In the references section, there are very long quotes written there. It's very hard to understand the article when a reader has to jump back and forth with footnotes to read the quotes. Furthermore, the text in the references section is small, making it even harder to read. By practice, when you want to take information from a source, there are 2 ways:

  1. Simply grab the idea/meaning/information from the source, write it with your own prose and make a credit by using a citation, without the original quote. By citation, it means that you put only the article/journal/web/news/etc. citation form, complete with its author, title, etc. You may want to read WP:CITE on how to make a citation and further to use WP:CITET for using cite template. Note that cite template is not a requirement.
  2. Put a direct quotation and don't forget to put also its citation at the end. It similar with what has been done here. However, do not put it in the References section, but directly embedded in the main text. You can use many templates for quotation. For example, Template:quotation, Template:cquote, etc.

You may put text in the footnotes for explaining something that is not directly attached to the subject, to avoid reader being distracted. Here's what footnotes are, quoted directly from WP:CITE:

What footnotes are normally used for

  • Some publications use footnotes for both the full citation of a source, and for tangential comments or information of interest to the reader.
  • Some publications use Harvard style notation for sources, and use footnotes exclusively for tangential comments or information of interest. In this case, in other words, footnotes are notes with relevant text that would distract from the main point if embedded in the main text, yet are helpful in explaining a point in greater detail. Such footnotes can be especially helpful for later fact-checkers, to ensure that the article text is well-supported. Thus, using footnotes to provide useful clarifying information outside the main point is fine where this is needed.

So I am going to put this article On Hold for GA. You can fix this matter in the meantime. I think 7 days of on hold period is more than enough. I think it is just moving footnotes back to the main article. — Indon (reply) — 15:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing. There is one image with copyright but no fair use rationale and one image with obsolete tag. Please fix license tags for these images also. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 15:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll see what the best solution will be and will probably fix it this weekend. BabyNuke 19:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA passed

I have seen improvements based on my review in the previous thread. Hence, GA is passed. I enjoy reading this article. It's compact, well-referenced, good sources, compelling prose and stays focus on the topic. Congratulations to the editors of this article for your hard work. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 08:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! BabyNuke 10:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freemasonry ritual

The sentence ending, "the hunting is done by a select group of privileged fishermen, membership being decided by a sort of masonic ritual." is rather unsubstantiated. Whet sort of masonic ritual? Why is it sort or a ritual. Tell us more or tell us less; this is an encyclopedia. Williamborg (Bill) 04:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Then less, I have no further information on the matter. BabyNuke 09:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for deleting the petition

There is nothing against posting a link to a more critical article or website providing that it adds to the article, however, the petition website does not add anything to the article but encouraging readers to speak out against it. Further, the statement that 20.000 dolphins are killed in drive hunts anually is absolutely incorrect. About 16.000 small whales are killed by Japan anually in various ways, the vast majority of them (some 14.000) being porpoises killed in harpoon hunts. The half a page worth of text there is reads like a piece of propaganda. Don't get me wrong, I oppose the practice myself, but I'll let the article speak for itself instead of linking to questionable petitions that in the end will bias the article. Putting that link there is like saying "now that you've read the article, you may want to sign this petition". BabyNuke 15:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Hmm. Well, I disagree with your last sentence, but if it has false information then it shouldn't be on there. Thanks for pointing that out. (and sorry for taking forever to reply)--TheAlphaWolf 01:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I support a link (and per WP guidelines) if it provides reasonable educational value the opposition is using against whaling and is objective (which is possible). But if there is any indication of "sign this petition now" or check out this next link about a global anti-hunting organization, then the article should not appear. The best link would be a scholar studying dolphins and simply their observations on whaling. I whole heartily agree that placing certain links at the end of a long article is akin to endorsing them which is what happened to many Iraq-related articles. 64.122.208.184 15:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change of method

According the the source referend, the slitting of the throat is no longer allowed. If the editor that removed this portion (71.163.28.131) has any source that would suggest that the method has not changed, please provide this before removing this section. BabyNuke 15:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unneccesary passage

"Well known are also the images from Iki Island taken in 1979 of a Japanese fisherman stabbing dolphins with a spear in shallow waters.[27]"

I believe this passage is either unneccesary or should be provided as a "related article" link because the incident in Iki had nothing to do with drive hunting. Tsumugi 03:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tsumugi (talk • contribs) 03:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

To quote the reference: "They began herding dolphins into a small bay, sealing it off with a net, and then killing them with spears." To me, that sounds like a drive hunt. BabyNuke 20:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts in criticism section

I have reverted the following changes in the criticism section:

  • The sentence that the reasoning was based on emotion and is thus not relevant. I've not taken this out entirely but tweaked the sentence a bit. It now reads: "Not all of the Japanese fishermen are convinced of this and also see this reasoning as being emotional and irrelevant and thus do not believe dolphins deserve to be treated any different from fish." - this is consistent with the reference used. This reference was removed in favour of a different one for no apparant reason, but this has change has been reverted.
  • This comment has been removed: "...which fishermen believe are often used to distort the facts...". While the reference used does state that the fishermen believe protesters and campaigners distort the facts, that is not related to the photos and videos. Photos and videos, as long as they have not been manipulated (for which there is no evidence), do not distort facts. They just present the situation "as is".
  • Further, changed "many Japanese" back to "some". Unless there's some clear polls out there of the amount of Japanese that feel this way or otherwise reliable literature on it it's going to be difficult to say "many Japanese" and be able to reference that statement. BabyNuke (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The comment "do not believe dolphins deserve to be treated any different from fish." are taken from the ordinary fishermen. That's why I call it a strawman fallacy. My source is from the responsible people (chief of the whaling section at the Japanese Fisheries Agency and the chief of cooperative union).
  • You need to respond my NPOV claim.
  • It is said clearly in the source. Please let me know where did you get this "some". I believe there must be a clear poll or something. There is a sentence just above this. "The hunts are considered very brutal by many, ". please kindly let me know where you got this "many". Tarafuku10 (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • These are the hunters themselves yet you say their opinions less relevant? They're the ones that do this, I'd say their opinion counts.
  • I'll agree that not mentioning that the killing method used is now (officially - since it's almost impossible to actually check) banned can distort the image somewhat. So I'll leave that comment in as it's valid. HOWEVER, that is in the end only a small part of what the videos shows and more recent videos only show the hunt and capture because the killing is no longer visible. It hardly disqualifies the footage entirely. Further, the reference used just does not mention any video.
  • That many are against it is quite obvious. The massive amount of criticism is a good indicator for that. However, most of the support for the hunt comes from the locals it seems. And to define some, I take the dictionary: "of a certain unspecified number". That's clearly the case. Many suggests there's a lot but I find little evidence that many support this practice, while it's clear many oppose it (do you want a random poll to prove that?).
This section as is has had very little editing as of late, the article has passed a GA review and promotion. So it seems other editors did not come to the same conclusions as you. Please do not keep adding this back. I strive for NPOV as much as you do. So I strive to neither condemn the practice or to speak out in favour of those that practice it, but merely to report on it as objectively as possible. I don't think either one of us is interested in breaking the three revert limit rule - so please DISCUSS what edits you would like to be made HERE, then perhaps we can work it out together and come to something we can both (plus any other editors that may read this) agree on and not have this tug of war. BabyNuke (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It is clear from the sources that who said that these reasonings were emotional. This is an official view from the responsible people so why not write it so that readers can see it official. "Do not believe dolphins deserve to be treated any different from fish" is a view from one fisherman (or a small group of fishermen) who doesn't represent all the fishermen in any capacity. Don't mix an official view and a casual comment in one sentence because it may mislead people. I also have a problem with the wording "dolphins deserve to" which I feel is patronising. Can't we just write "dolphins don't have to be treated..."?
  • Congratulations on the article passing the GA but it doesn't mean I can't challenge its neutrality. You are not still responding to my NPOV claim. I am prepared to rephrase it as far as the neutrality is guaranteed. Fishermen's disbelief on campaigners should be mentioned in the sentence.
  • You really disappointed me on this. However obvious it may seem to you, you still need to make your statement verifiable. Just like I did. Please don't you think you can get away with "It's obvious" because I'll never let you.
  • I accept your edit on this. Thank you. But this is a good example how one can mislead people just by not mentioning a fact or two.
You ask me to discuss. I am just doing what you are doing. Write comment here and edit the article. As far as I am concerned, we are having a good discussion. Sorry I made "discuss" lowercase without your permission, as it looked really loud. I am helping you to make this article better. Tarafuku10 (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The current wording I find okay now, I won't go wreck my brain over the word "some". I'll leave the whaling support statement in for now though I am under the impression that relates to the larger whale species and not the drive hunts - and these are quite different. The only statement I refuse to accept is that the videos are seen as an attempt to distort reality. The reference used does not mention videos AT ALL, so there is no basis for this claim and I've now mentioned that the killing method used in the most known video is banned officially at least (and this has already been in the article for ages in the line of text supporting the screen cap). And please, if you add a reference, don't just put a link between two ref tags, make them uniform with the rest of the article. BabyNuke (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I still believe the source is relevant because fishery union claim campaigners misrepresent to the media, and photos and videos are essential parts of media reports. But I guess we need compromise from both sides, so let it be for now.

You wrote you strove for NPOV and I don't doubt it. But I still believe this article needs a lot of work in terms of NPOV. For example, I originally intended to make a slight tweak on the Solomon Islands section but, after I checked the source, I found out the cultural aspect of the hunting described in the source was somehow dropped in the article. Another example is photos. There are 5 photos in the article. All of them show dead animals and some are bloody. (I guess I don't have to remind that any slaughtering is bloody). If you look at similar articles, Fox hunting doesn't show any dead animal. Deer hunting has one picture that show dead deer but it doesn't seem that brutal as it's a 100 year old monochrome photo. Hunting has 2 photos but they don't seem gory either. Other meat-related articles (Beef, Pork, Kangaroo (meat) etc.) don't have such images. So I can safely conclude that this Dolphin drive hunting article unproportionally puts emphasis on a brutal aspect of hunting, with or without intention. For me, this article is a propaganda piece.

In the FA candidate discussion, one reviewer asked "Does criticism only apply to Japan?" and you answered "Strangely enough, it does." I think we need to find out why it does to make this article featured. Tarafuku10 (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

With regards to the cultural aspect, that is mentioned. In the older version before it was changed it already said: "Though they also eat the meat of the animals, a second reason for hunting the dolphins here is for their teeth, which are used in jewelry and seen as a form of currency on the island." Mentioning it is used as jewelry and currency is mentioning it is a form of culture is it not?
The photos, well - if you can come up with some nice free to use photos on the subject feel free to add them. Photos of drive hunting are just likely to involve pictures of the subject matter, which happens to be bloody at times. The two photos from the Faroe Islands were not taking by some animal welfare organisation to protest the hunt but instead by a local, who uploaded them to wikipedia. So they're very much showing this from how a local would see it. Also, the animal in the photo in the "entertainment" section isn't dead, just to point that out. For some none-gory alternatives that might be a nice addition to the article: I could imagine a photo of protesters with banners or a photo of the ships out at sea hunting the dolphins down, or perhaps also a photo of dolphin meat being sold.
About criticism, the bulk is aimed towards Japan. Look around yourself and you'll find that if you look for drive hunting, Japan will come up much more often than any of the other places. I can't really help that that's the case. As for why it is, I think it may be in part because both the Solomon Islands and the Faroe Islands (the only other two places where it happens on a large scale) are quite remote places and so what happens there just doesn't receive as much attention. BabyNuke (talk) 11:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, jewelry and money relate to the culture but I didn't say all the cultural aspects had been dropped although I admit I didn't make it very clear. If you read the source, you see how important the hunting is to the life in the island. On the contrary, the hunting was rather represented in an exploitative way in the article, in my opinion. OK. Please allow me to rephrase this. It is a way of how it was represented. My claim was that it was misrepresented.
Surely fishermen are proud of what they are doing just like any other professionals are, but I don't think who took photos matters to the neutrality. It is editors who choose and present photos, and, with an intention, editors can put a spin for viewers to believe what editors want them to believe. I don't have good images myself now so I'll add one when I find it.
Thank you for sharing your view on "why it does" with me. Now I am sure you'd like mine in turn. I believe this campaign has something to do with Anti-whaling countries' nationalism. These campaigners are trying to sell to their own nations the idea "The Japanese may be economically successful but you guys are morally more developed and more conscientious than these cold-blooded b*stards." Campaigners can also leverage xenophobic sentiment against Japan for quick money (economic conflict and WWII only apply to Japan out of the three). Or it may be something similar to what the British did to the Dutch when both were competing economically 2 or 3 centuries ago. The British tried to spread bad image of the Dutch, coining the words like Dutch treat or Dutch uncle. I can assure you that putting up bloody images and trying to paint these fishermen as cruel, uncivilised second-class citizens will never work because this is the tactics typically employed by lowly tabloid newspapers that try to get attention by being sensational and numbing peoples logical-thinking for sake of their self-interest (selling more copies). As you know, these newspapers are always despised. But it might suit some campaigners because they can continue to profit (raising funds) as long as the issue remains. Tarafuku10 (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, the reality obviously is that when it comes to animal welfare, the "west" does no better than Japan (just look at factory farming). So one can argue that "we" have enough issues with regards to animal welfare ourselves to be protesting about animal welfare abroad. I once wrote a column on this with regards to the plans of Iceland to resume small scale whaling, wanting to catch a mere 39 whales and the international outrage this resulted in. It's such a massive double standard when you see what "we" do to animals. Possibly, by telling someone else he's doing something wrong we feel better about ourselves. However, that's all opinion - the article needs neither my or your opinion and it's only reporting on the criticism out there - fair or not. That I see it as a bit of a double standard at times is my opinion but adding this would compromise the neutrality of the article. BabyNuke (talk) 10:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] October 2007 incident

Weekly Sincho 29 November issue reported the Fishermen's version of the 2007 October incident.

When the fishermen tried to release smaller dolphins for a conseravtional purpose, the campaigners came into the sea again. The fishermen tried to get the campainers back to the beach because the fishermen feard dolphins getting agitated and out of control. Because the fishermen and the campaigners didn't speake each other's language, the fishermen used their fishing sticks to push the surf boards.

http://www.shinchosha.co.jp/shukanshincho/tachiyomi/20071129_1.html (japanese language) Tarafuku10 (talk) 12:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I find it a bit of a "saving our ass" story, but - I have reworded the article a little. Removed that she and the others were there to "free the dolphins" as that wasn't said. BabyNuke (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Dolsling.jpg

Image:Dolsling.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Japanese term for dolphin meat?

Is there a Japanese term for dolphin meat, or perhaps an English one? Seems relevant to the article, if someone happens to be in Japan and come across it. 69.220.2.188 (talk) 06:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean a Japanese equivalent of a term "beef" for cow meat, or "australus" for kangaroo meat? No we don't have those special terms for food meat. Beef is just "cow meat" and dolphin meat is "dolphin meat" in Japanese. Tarafuku10 (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, if I were in Japan looking for dolphin meat from someone who didn't speak English, what would I say? 155.138.3.21 (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Just taking a guess here, but i would think you would say the Japanese word for dolphin and the Japanese word for meat, equaling"Dolphin meat" ;)166.214.174.237 (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)