Talk:Whaling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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
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.
Whaling is within the scope of WikiProject Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of fishing. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can register your interest for the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as High-Importance on the assessment scale.
Please explain ratings on the ratings summary page.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
The introduction of this article is too short.
To comply with Wikipedia's lead section guidelines, it should be expanded to summarize the article.
Archive
Archives
Archive1Archive2

Contents

[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 [1] 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 [2] 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)

No reactions to my suggestion, so I subbed in the version minus the "Data Deficient" column. Enuja 01:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Eek! The subpopulation/stock bit was messed up. I fixed it. I'm pretty sure the table now how has exactly the same content it used to, but it takes up less space. That was my aim. Enuja 02:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up the table (I didn't mean for it to get so big). Instead of the underscore (_) you can use a non-breaking space by inserting the code   (I've fixed it on the article now) —Pengo 02:12, 21 May 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)

Parts of this article are definitely overlapping and contradictory with the History of whaling article, and it would be nice to see the two combined.Myrddin y dewydd 03:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General References Section

I have not noticed a section like this in other articles, and the one existing in this article is overflowing. For instance, what would be the difference between the websites listed under "general references" and those under "external links" arnt external links also "general references" anyways? I propose doing away with the entire general refrences section. Some things in it could be moved to "See Also" and others to "external links". Though I hope in a change such as this its all seriously trimmed down. I welcome comments here on this before I start digging in to it myself. Russeasby 03:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that "General References" is supposed to be used for articles that aren't cited line by line, to tell the reader where the information came from. As the General References section stands now, it isn't very useful, but I'd be a little hesitant about taking it out in one fell swoop. It might still have some really good general references from which this article was built that could be used to provide citations for the many unsourced statements. I suggest you get rid of it, but slowly and only after you check that each source wouldn't be useful to cite in the article. I know the whole thing will still hang out in the history, but I'm an optimist who thinks that new editors might be able to use those references to improve the article. Enuja 03:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I think we agree here pretty much. For instance any "websites" listed in general refrence which are good general references I think should be move to external links, I am not advocating deleting the section without thought by any means. Likewise non websites could easily be listed in "see also" in some cases, like Moby Dick the novel could be listed as a see also via a wikilink to the article on the novel. On the same note, the external links section is also excessive. We cant have a link to every pro and anti whaling website out there. Time needs to be taken to go through these listed sites and be sure the ones with the best information are listed (pro and anti). I welcome help in doing this! Russeasby 03:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree we agree, and I might help later, but I'm not going to work on it right now! Enuja 04:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligence Section

As it stands, it says nothing about the relevance of intelligence to whaling. Although admittedly unsourced and not all that well written, the previous version at least did address the idea of intelligence as a reason not to eat organisms. Russeasby, you removed it because the pig stuff wasn't sourced and you were skeptical. Personally, I don't know of any good sources on pig intelligence, but I have heard (as a child at petting zoos, in conversation with people who know pigs personally) that they are extraordinarily intelligent, so I'm not personally skeptical. However, I suggest that you return all of the not-pig-intelligence stuff to that section, and continue to leave out the two sentences on pig intelligence. The two linked sections don't address the morality of whale-killing, and that's exactly what a section in this part of this article should be about. Enuja 03:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I do agree in many ways. I have heard as well much of my life of the inteligence of pigs, and I am sure a quick google search could give many references reguarding their intelligence. But that is not where my objection to this section is. My objection is to the argument to the reletive intelligence of pigs vs whales and the use of this argument to support whaling related claims. Without citations this eaily falls into origonal research. I have no doubts about whale intelligence, or pig intelligence for that matter, but their relation in the whaling debate should be able to be referenced to be included here. But even the non pig comments aside, there are still issues, such as:
"Some pro-whaling advocates also question the use of intelligence to determine the ethical acceptability of killing an organism. They argue that a logical extension of this belief would be that within a species, individuals who are more intelligent have more right to life, and that this would be entirely immoral in any human society."
What pro whaling advocates are arguing this point? A comment like "this would be entirely immoral in any human society" is not only origonal research but stinks of weasel words as well I think. If pro whaling sites can be referenced supporting such things, I am happy to keep it, especially useful would be direct quotes included in the article suggesting things like this. But as it stands none of this exists and thus the entire section is unencylopedic. I know you have spend a lot of time on these articles, rewriting them for the better, if you want to readd some of what I have removed I will not object, but will offer my input on what I think is appropriate or not, I am happy to discuss. I will make clear here now that I am not personally pro whaling, but I seriously want to see this article remain neautral, whaling is a seriously controverisal topic thus references here are more important then most other articles. Russeasby 04:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
We have a disagreement about process, I think. (Other readers, see the end of Talk:Whaling/Archive2) I think a poor treatment of a subject is more likely to be improved than no treatment of a subject is. I think it's easier to find citations than to come up with the subjects that need to be covered; and I think the section had a good start on the subjects that need to be covered
I also have a problem with your use of the phrase "original research." If I, personally, put a mirror in front of a pig and in front of a whale, with and without new items on the animal's body, and judged the animal's response, and came up with a conclusion about the relative self-awareness of pigs and whales, and reported it in this article, then THAT would be original research. As it is, nothing in this article is original research; it is simply unattributed or unverified. However, I maintain that this information is verifiable and attributable, and therefore should be in this encyclopedia.
I actually think that direct quotes are usually a bad idea; paraphrasing and citing sources is much, much better. We don't care how pro- and anti-whaling groups say their ideas, we care what their ideas are.Enuja 04:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead Section

I shortened the lead section. I'm not happy with the way it flows at the moment (it doesn't) but I think I preserved all of the important information while making it easier to read. I removed the history of why people whale (oil and food to "protein," which is, of couse, food) as adequetly covered in the article and not important to the subject as a whole. I removed two of three sources for the same fact, as the IUCN list is the place to go for endangered species count. Enuja 06:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: I keep shortening the article, and the readable prose of the article is 31 kilobytes long. So, by the article size guidelines alone, this article probably isn't too long. I still haven't read it all, though.  :-) Enuja 06:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

In lead section, it says whaling has been around since 6000 BC, and in history of whaling it says since 7000 BC. Does anyone know which is correct? Also, should BC become BCE after changes? Joel.labes 07:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Safety of eating whale meat

This section was very misleading as it only discussed the presence of trace amounts of contaminants and not its nutritional properties, in other words: Is it healthy or unhealthy to have whale meat in your diet? I added a small paragraph, but am not too satisfied with it. One problem I had was to find a reliable factual source and I think it is possible to do better. jax (talk) 05:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whaling in the Faroe Islands

This section is repeatedly vandalized. To anyone who might be planning to do so (again): your not improving the article and you clearly don´t know anything at all about whaling in the Faroes either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.77.131.153 (talk • contribs)

[edit] What a 13 yearold debater has to say about it!!

A proposed model is:

• That after lifting the ban we enforce these restrictions: • It is illegal to kill a whale that belongs to an endangered species. • To hunt whales legally you must have an IWC representative on board at all times. • To hunt whales you must have a licence that is renewed every two years. • You can not catch whales during the breeding season • For every whale caught illegally there is a one million dollar fine.

This model will work because by saying that it is illegal to kill a whale that belongs to an endangered species we are providing an incentive for the whalers to hunt in an environmentally sound and sustainable way. There is an International Whaling Representative on board every whaling ship at all times to make sure that the laws are followed and that the whalers do not do anything illegal. Licences are enforced to make sure all the whalers are catching whales in a kind way that reduces their suffering. The reason for the complete ban on whaling during the breeding season is another incentive for the whalers to make sure the whale population does not decline. The fine is in place to make sure that the whalers know that even two illegally caught whales could put them out of business. This is yet another reason why whalers would obey the new set of rules.

Now onto my first point: We can see that countries around the world that currently whale are breaking the rules and the ban has not worked on them. One of the reasons is because we have been demonising the whaling countries. It is almost as if they defy the ban as an empowered student stands up against a playground bully. We are suggesting a model that releases both sides of the debate from their prejudices and mind sets. We think that the ban has done its job and it is time to move on. At first the ban did work but now even though it is in place people are still whaling. We recognise that the world’s whale population is suffering because of this and we want to change it. The ban has done its job and we can now see that enforcing heavy restrictions is a better way of protecting the world’s whale population.


And now my second point: Whaling companies are more likely to obey these restrictions because they are beneficial for them. The ban is not working now because it is not in the interests of the whalers to obey it. But if we get everyone together and make sure all parties contribute to the new set of rules so that the restrictions work for everyone we are more likely to get a positive result.

We can now see that the ban on international whaling should be lifted and be replaced with restrictions. Because the ban has done its job, countries are more likely to listen if the ban is in their interests and whaling is a cultural practise. So we can now draw the obvious conclusion that the ban on international whaling should be lifted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.34.251 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your posts with four tildles ~~~~ This talk page is for discussing the article, not the subject for the article. We really, really need reputable sources to build this article; it's full of uncited statements from both "sides" of the debate. I'm not sure where you got the opinions of the the 13 yr old, but if you're reading arguments on both "sides", it's possible you have on your fingertips both the resources and the interest in the subject required to make this a good article. Don't insert the essay above, however, as that would be a copyright violation, and the essay isn't encyclopedic to begin with. Enuja 16:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Value for Research section

A few comments about the section quoted below

Lethal sampling is required to obtain age information, which can be reliably gathered by looking at the ear plug in the head of the dead animal. However, all other information can be gathered through non-lethal means. Dietary information can be gathered from analysis of whale faeces. Gender, reproductive status, and population profiles can be gathered from non-lethal biopsies. Within the IWC, age data is not needed to establish a catch limit for whaling, which is the stated goal of the Japanese research[28] Questionable research includes a paper named Fertilizability of ovine, bovine, and minke whales spermatazoa intracytoplasmically injected into bovine oocytes, a paper which studies the taking of whale genetic material and putting it into cows.[28]

The collection of whale faeces for analysis may work fine for small numbers of animals and in certain areas - however, it´s not widely used worldwide for logistical and area / animal specific reasons. I´d like to see a citation for " Within the IWC, age data is not needed to establish a catch limit for whaling " Age data is highly relevant in population dynamics so I´m kinda wondering where that gem comes from. Also note two of the reviewers on this tv program are highly anti whaling - and its a TV program - not the IWC scientific committee - I think its about time that we start noting what comes from the SC committee of the IWC and what comes from the plenary ( political ) committee - and what is media reports - it makes a big difference. Comments / objections / discussion before I rewrite?? SammytheSeal 06:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This section is a start, please help improve it. Last time I attempted a more stubby start you deleted it: [3]. The section pretty much all comes from Catalyst, and as you've noted there is a strong bias in it. However, we didn't have a section on whale research, and it's an important issue, as virtually all whaling is done under the banner of "scientific research", so, basically it's a start.
Yes, please include more information and other POVs, but the points made by these scientists aren't bad ones and should be included as well. I couldn't track down the exact title of the paper mentioned in the program either (at the end of the above quote), and some links to the actual papers published by JARPA wouldn't go astray either (if any are available online).
The part about age data comes from a quote by Dr Nick Gales, "scientific committee member of the International Whaling Commission, and a reknowned scientific whaling critic" (again, from the Catalyst episode). Of course a reference to the IWC's own material may be preferable. The complete Cataylst program and transcript are available on the abc website: Whale Science (Catalyst) —Pengo 00:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Pengo, already working on collecting various references/cites ;) Re: deleting the stub - i deleted it simply as it was unsubstantiated. One other thing though, [[it's an important issue, as virtually all whaling is done under the banner of "scientific research]] Is simply not true, Norway has had a purely commercial hunt since 1995 and until recently, were taking more minkies than Japan yearly- indeed, Norway´s current quotas are higher than the Japanese scientific hunt in the antartic. I´ll try and dig up links to the specific papers ( or some of them anyway )Here´s a link to a summary of Japanese papers submitted to the IWC Scientific committee [4]
Here´s a link to an IWC paper on the relevance of age data - they seem to think it´s important, unlike Gales ;) [5]
Here´s an extract from the IWC scientific committee review of Jarpa 1
" The results from the JARPA programme, while not required for management under the RMP, have the potential to improve management of minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere in the following ways: (1) reductions in the current set of plausible scenarios considered in Implementation Simulation Trials; and (2) identification of new scenarios to which future Implementation Simulation Trials will have to be developed (e.g. the temporal component of stock structure). The results of analyses of JARPA data could be used in this way perhaps to increase the allowed catch of minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere, without increasing depletion risk above the level indicated by the existing Implementation Simulation Trials of the RMP for these minke whales." From this page : [6]
Here´s an old reply from a JWA spokesman - old but informative :[7]
The thing about cetacean research is that it´s a VAST subject - Japanese scientific whaling is just a tiny part  ;)SammytheSeal 15:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Great :) Glad to have my misconceptions busted. I look forward to seeing the section expanded. Note that IWC says age data improves management, but is not "required", which was Gales' point. —Pengo 15:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Me again Pengo;) Gales quote was " But the important point is that within the IWC, you don’t need that age data. To establish a catch limit for whaling you need information about population structure, abundance and prior whaling history. You don’t need age data." Which is strictly speaking, in view of how the RMP is set up, true. However, Gales omits that age data improves Whaling management, and as such the RMP - which is a crucial ommission - he´s cherry picking to support his stance on TV - naughty boy ;). If you´re going to whale sustainably, you want the very best management procedures in place - Gales ignores that for whatever reason. Note also that if Japan decides to leave the IWC, ( which is looking more and more likely IMO )Age data will be highly relevant in deciding quotas outside of the RMP. Note also, Norway conducts commercial whaling as if they were whaling under the RMP .. they use a different tuning level (0.60 instead of 0.72 ) but thats also within IWC limits. They "could" take 2000 minkies a year if the so wished by strictly following the RMP. I´ll rewrite it when I´ve found all the sources/cites ;)SammytheSeal 15:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm for some weird and wonderful reason, my edits today on this section are not showing up ?? Is there some sort of protection? SammytheSeal (talk) 10:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History section

I noticed that User:Prestonmcconkie removed a fact and its citation [8]. I'm of somewhat mixed minds about the change; if the problem was that the language didn't correctly express the contents of the citation, wouldn't it be sufficient to just change the language in the article instead of removing the fact and its source? On the other hand, there is a whole article on the history of whaling, and I think we should only have a very short, concise summary of the history of whaling. Therefore, the question becomes "is it important that early whaling altered ecology?" I think it is important because there seems to be a dichotamous view of whaling, that modern whaling is qualitatively instead of just quantitatively different from aboriginal whaling. The use of this journal article gives interested readers the facts to think about that question. Enuja 20:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Enuja, I like your point, and I agree with your purpose in putting that reference there. And you are right, it would have been better to alter the wording than to take the citation completely out. However, I didn't personally understand the purpose for putting the statement and citation just where it was, and lacking your perspective, I couldn't see why it was important at all.
Now I do see the importance, and I would like to see it put back in. But I don't think it should be in conjunction with the statement on whaling affecting the evolution of "many cultures." I think it should go in all by itself, and the significance of the cited material pointed out (without violating POV principles, of course). -- Preston McConkie 07:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't put the reference in myself; it's just one of the few things I didn't take out. But I'm glad we can agree that it's a useful fact to have, and whomever comes up with good language to put it back in first, can put it back in. Enuja 02:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Okay, I've put it back in. I was lucky that the article has plenty of background in it, including that usual assumption that Inuit didn't alter ecology by their hunting and gathering, so that bit of the fact is covered by the article. I'm still a little worried that the language is too detailed for a short summary section that sends readers to two different articles for the meat of the information. I also added a fact tag on the "whaling affected the development of many cultures" bit that I'd left go unmolested on my last edit of that section. It really would be nice to get a source for that. Enuja 03:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction in "Modern Whaling Section"

Currently, the article contains a rather glaring contradiction. In the "Modern Whaling" section entry for Greenland it states - "Greenland Inuit whalers kill around 175 whales per year, making them the third largest hunt in the world after Norway and Japan". However, directly above this, in the Faroe Islands entry it states - "Around 950 long-finned pilot whales (Globicephala melaena) are killed annually, although mainly during the summer". If Greenland are in third place with 175 animals hunted, and Japan and Norway are in second and first places with however many animals hunted, where exactly do the Faroe Islands fit in with their 950 animals hunted? Surely Greenland should be demoted to fourth place, behind Japan, Norway and the Faroe Islands. Greenland can't have the third largest hunt when 3 other countries have larger hunts than they do. Give the Faroe Islands the credit they deserve and a place in the top 3. Malbolge (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as how pilot whales are dolphins, I wouldn't consider pilot whaling whaling per se, but dolphin hunting. I'm sure others would disagree, but I only consider whaling to include the exploitation of mysticetes, sperm whales, and ziphiids. Jonas Poole (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you - I don´t consider the "grind" to come under whaling either... SammytheSeal (talk) 08:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligence

There is a main article on animal intelligence and one on cetacean intelligence, so I think keeping the section here short is important. A recent revision by an anonymous editor added information on the general field of studying animal intelligence and on intelligence in non-cetaceans; I don't think this information is relevant to this article. Enuja (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

I deleted the picture in the introduction which had the actual whale guts sprawled out all over the deck of a boat. I personally felt that such an image was too inappropriately shocking to be put at the very start of the article. After all, we would not begin an article about cadavers with a picture of a half-disected man. --- 18 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.44.230.235 (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Death does start with an image of a dead man. I looked at cadaver, and it needs some serious work, including, in my opinion, an image of a cadaver at the top of the article. I think that picture of historical whaling is very informative and improves the article. Can you think of an alternative image to start the article off with? Remember, wikipedia is not censored and this is an article on whaling, not on whales. I'm replacing the image for now. Please discuss the issue here again before removing the image. - Enuja (talk) 05:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know much about editing the wikipedia, so I'm sorry if I did anything that was against the way things are normally done. I'll agree with you it's an excellent image, and could be included somewhere further down in the article. What I'm concerned with is starting the article with such a shocking and potent image, since the reader will not have the ability to intepret the picture until they read further on. For example, if an article on animal experimentation begins with a dead cat, the emotional impact of that first image will just overpower the actual content of what is written. Once the context is understood, the more powerful images can be shown. Maybe that first image could be replaced with a picture of the Yushin Maru 2? --- 18 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.44.230.235 (talk) 06:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! It's good to be bold when editing articles. I just took a closer look at Image:Whaling-french_and_dead_whale.jpeg. In the past, the only things I'd clearly seen where the people, the whale's mouth, and the blood on the deck, so it didn't seem very graphic to me. Looking at the full image, I can see that some of the whalers are holding the skin and blubber up with hooks, but I honestly hadn't noticed that before, and don't personally think it's easy to identify in the thumbnail size of the image that is in the article. I do think that Image:Whalemeat.jpg, Image:Whale_meat_on_dish.jpg and Image:Whaling_in_the_Faroe_Islands.jpg, all used further down in the article, are more graphic because you can see the meat in a boy's hands, nicely cut up on a plate, and, in the last image, you can actually clearly see guts spilling out of dolphins. In fact, that last image is a featured image, and I think we usually put featured images as the lead image, but I think that one is too graphic. On idea is to switch the whaling on a boat image with the engraving of old whaling. I'm a bit hesitant to do it, because History of whaling has a different engraving as its lead image, but it's a possibility. We could also put the featured image of dead dolphins on top, but I doubt that would be better in your estimation.
By the way, if you type four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments on talk pages it's easier to identify who wrote what comment, and the bot won't go behind you and sign for you. - Enuja (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


It is a good historic picture, but I tend to agree that it is not entirely appropriate to the article. The blood and guts don't strike me as problematic: whaling is an inherently messy business, and needn't be santized. However, the vessel in question is not a whaling ship: it is a research vessel from the Monaco aquarium. So, in essence, these are not whalers in the photo, simply early researchers. It is rather akin to putting a photo of vivisection on an article about abbatoirs. I would suggest replacing it with any number of images specifically of whaling vessels/crews. What ought to be borne in mind in selecting an image, I think, is the contemporary fact that most whaling occurring today is done by indigenous groups and small coastal communities. An encyclopedic image is intended to be a visual summary of an activity, ideally in contemporary form. An image of a Japanese factory whaling ship would not suffice, as this is not how the majority of whaling is done in the present day. Neither, I think, does a dated photo of the Prince of Monaco on a research vessel. Contemporary reality is best served by an image of a Norwegian coastal whaling vessel, icelandic catcher boat, Chukotkan umiaaq, or Eskimo skin boat.

[edit] Dolphin. Dolphin. Dolphin. Dolphin. Sperm Whale?

The article cited for "whale" (it was almost entirely about dolphins) intelligence is not a reliable source in my mind. It didn't mentioned baleen whales, the primary target of whalers today, a single time. The only reference made to species hunted today was of the sperm whale (not in name, but that appears to have been the species Simmonds was talking about when he mentioned the possible cultural knowledge whales possess). With that, I will be reverting the section that states that "whales are highly social animals." It is a extremely vague statement. Seeing as how the article only mentioned a handful of species (the common bottlenose dolphin, Indo-pacific bottlenose dolphins, false killer whales, and probably sperm whales), it appears "whales" in this context refers to these species alone. What about mysticetes? As I said above, as they comprise the vast majority of species taken today, shouldn't a section on "Whale Intelligence" focus on them? I believe it should. Most mysticetes, including blue, fin, sei, and right whales, are by no means "highly social animals." That being said, I will be reverting the section to say: "some species of whale are highly social." Jonas Poole (talk) 03:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I understand that. I was just making sure the article here said the same thing as the article it cited. I would be much happier if you provided a reference to replace what was removed, although I don't think the sentence as it stands is contentious. Is there dispute as to whether all species of whales are highly social? I was under the impression that they all were. Djk3 (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Value for research

I made edits here on 15 December 2007, however, for some reason they do not show in the section still, although you can see them in edit mode - I have no idea why - can anyone fix this / shed some light? SammytheSeal (talk) 09:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The named footnote preceding your text was simply missing a termination code. See Wikipedia:Footnotes for the proper code. All I had to do was add a "/" to fix the problem. - Enuja (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Enuja :D ... After reading through the footnotes link i´m even more confused though ..lol... I´ll take your word for it ;)SammytheSeal (talk) 07:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] St. Kitts and Nevis Declaration

User:SqueakBox removed the link to the St. Kitts and Nevis Declaration in the lead. [9] This is probably an improvement of the lead, but I think that the declaration should be somewhere in the article, even if not in the lead. Any ideas where? - Enuja (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe " The arguments for and against whaling" ? SammytheSeal (talk) 07:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, under "Modern Whaling" would probably fit betterSammytheSeal (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

  • Lead too short
  • History of whaling summary too short/too much attention given to modern whaling over past whaling
  • Controversy section seems a little long - possibly "spin out" and have a shorter summary section here? Richard001 (talk) 08:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I don't know anything about whaling

And I still don't. Can anyone help? There's no section that actually talks about whaling itself, the entire article is about the conservation issues. What equipment is used in modern whaling? What sort of boats do whalers use? Do they use harpoons? Explosives? Do they drive whales into shallow waters? How many people are employed as whalers? Is it well paid? And what are these "traditional hunting methods and equipment" used in the Caribbean? Do we have to guess? There's some information on how whaling was done in the past in history of whaling, but nothing on how it's done today. Neıl ☎ 10:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


i concur, this entire article is not about whaling. why do they do it? the current article talks about whale meat.. but only how it's probably unsafe. so whalers only fish whales for their meat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.70.31 (talk) 11:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whale oil is used little today

Forgive me for being obtuse here - but what has Wilbur the pig to do with citing whale oil is little used today? I see no mention of whale oil on the link /cite provided SammytheSeal (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That's just the introduction. The article goes on to say: "Two centuries ago, whale oil fetched a high price because people used it in lamps. Whales had instrumental value. Electric lights are better and cheaper than oil lamps; accordingly, there is little or no market for whale oil today." (emphasis added) I understand how that citation can look silly from just the first page.  :) Djk3 (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Would´nt it be better to find a cite that people can follow and actually read? As it stands, the cite is practically useless ;). In addition, Spermaceti oil was used much more recently as lubricant in rocket gyroscopes - it´s one of the reasons the US stockpiled it in the 1950-60´s. It has since been replaced with synthetic lubricants. SammytheSeal (talk) 08:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
You can follow and read it, but it's an academic journal, so it's not free to read. You can probably access it without paying by looking from a computer on a college campus. (That's how I accessed it; my college subscribes to The Hastings Center Report.) It's absolutely not useless. Someone requested a citation for that sentence, and that article has text that directly supports the sentence in question. If you're suspicious that the text I quoted here is in the article, go to a local university and check from a lab computer. Djk3 (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
My point precisely, It´s assumed that all have access to a local college or university... and access to a computer account there. That´s obviously not the case. It´s not a case of " If you're suspicious " in the slightest, cites should support statements, and readers should´nt have to travel a few hundred miles and apply for access to a computer in order to verify/ access a cite. Once again, as it stands, the cite is practically useless to the average reader.SammytheSeal (talk) 07:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
This has very little to do with this article, and more to do with citations in general. The fact is, peer reviewed journals are the most reliable sources out there, and they are very rarely available for free on the internet. You're welcome to find a resource that can be accessed for free on the article and add it. Djk3 (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I haven't checked out the sentence or reference in detail, but it is completely true that peer reviewed journals are very good citations. Sure, not everyone can read them, but that's a downside we have to live with when using good sources. - Enuja (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The fact is, peer reviewed journals are the most reliable sources out there, and they are very rarely available for free on the internet. I´m not arguing with that at all. Peer reviewed journals are also rarely accessable to the general population as well ( though If I drove 120 miles each way I could probably access it myself ) It just seems paradoxical that a " free encyclopedia" uses hard to access, non-free references / cites - any kid reading that cite is going to wonder what wilbur the pig has to do with it all but whatever ;) I´ll replace it with a free reference if and when I uncover one if there is no objection. SammytheSeal (talk) 05:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
http://www.cbe.wwu.edu/dunn/rprnts.zuckermansdilemma.pdf appears to be the article in question. I'm not sure if it would be appropriate to link that though as the citation given that it probably is copyright of the journal it came from. --Albert.white (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)