This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Institute of Cetacean Research article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have added an extra info. The previious article appear to imply that ICR is a instiute invented solely to provide cover for commercial whaling which is not the case. It has been a genuine research institute way before the whaling become a political issue. It had to absorbed whaling facility because it previously relied its scientific data on commercial whaling operation which ended after the ban. It now fund whaling operation from the sale of whale meat. FWBOarticle 11:41, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
References
I'm wondering if the quotation marks around "research" in places where it's not a direct quote are appropriate. If the claim is that it is a research organization - then it should be called that (sans quotes) until there is conclusive evidence that it is not. I completely agree that it's pretty clear that they are a front for a commercial whaling enterprise - but it's an encyclopedia, and "pretty clear" doesn't really cut it. Yes? I know such things are likely to be contentious for people who are passionate about these isuses - so I want to mention it here before I make the change so as to avoid an edit war. Lekoman ( talk) 11:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
This article shows a very clear bias in just about every way imaginable.
1. "research" scare quotes. This apparently has to do with whether there are or aren't peer-reviewed reports. According to this link there are several every year. I don't think wikipedia is in a position to determine how much research can be attributed to "one" scientist either. - http://www.icrwhale.org/JARPAResults.htm - http://www.icrwhale.org/JARPA91paper.htm Or do we have sources to say that Jpn. J. Zoo Wildl. Med., Journal of Reproduction and Development, J.Cetacean Res.Manage, etc. are not peer-reviewed journals?
- "The ICR hunts and kills nearly a thousand whales yearly [5] while claiming that it is necessary for cetacean "research". The IRC has produced less than 10 research papers including only one 2001[6], none of which are peer-reviewed.[7]."
Odd, I count 10 published papers since 2007 alone. http://www.icrwhale.org/JARPA91paper.htm
2. In the controversy section there is a lot of issues about ICR research being criticized in IWC. However, IWC has also expressed approval. There are pro and anti-whaling members of IWC, but it seems only 1 side of that is being presented. http://www.e-kujira.or.jp/iwc/2009funchal/text/text_ext3.html
3. If we're going to include sentences like this: "Environmental groups dispute the Japanese claim of research "as a disguise for commercial whaling, which is banned" I think it's only fair that we include a sentence describing how Japan could quit IWC and whale commercially at their discretion without bothering with research, as Norway and Iceland have done. There is no penalty to leaving IWC.
4. http://www.oceannenvironment.org/japan_is_out_to_kill_1035_whales.htm Is this really the kind of source you want to put into an Encyclopedia? I'm sure there is something far less sensationalist than "TERRORISM against Whales."
5. Accusing people of being paid by ICR because they make a good point on the talk page is pretty pathetic.
That's all I've got for now. I look forward to seeing this article look less like a propaganda tool. 24.35.12.76 ( talk) 19:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, no ICR logo, but instead a picture of a whaling harpoon? 71.160.221.11 ( talk) 20:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I've just removed a sentence that read:
The source, Hardline warrior in war to save the whale, is an article about Sea Sheperd's Watson and their campaign against whaling. I was expecting the article to quote Watson calling the ICR that, in which case we could amend the sentence along the lines of:
The quote, however, comes from the nameless author of the article (or editorial?). I find the bias and inaccuracies in this article as well as the notability and relevance of the author and the remark such that it does not belong. The viewpoint is well represented. We don't need to give a platform for this drivel. -- Swift ( talk) 22:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Undoubtedly this is incorrectly formatted comment. Use of Sea Shepherd propaganda machine to source harvest numbers does little to provide impartial and unbiased perspective. If numbers of harvested animals are sourced to organizations infamous for their altercations with the organization in question, we can hardly assume unbiased information is included. Major media outlets and government filings should be sourced as reliable sources of data. Currently this article is a detriment to Wikipedia, and the use of this source is akin to sourcing "The Eternal Jew" for an article on the history of Judaism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.102.237.50 ( talk) 23:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
This info also appears in the Whaling in Japan article, almost verbatim except for the graph there. As I & others note in Talk:Whaling in Japan this info shouldn't be in both articles [in full].. The "research" doesn't qualify as scientific because it's not peer-reviewed, and thus should not be given undue weight here. The extensive JARPA/JARPN sections may belong in one or both of the articles, but not in both at full length. In one or the other, they should be summarized and a link to the full version included. PrBeacon ( talk) 08:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
In the Controversy section, I think it would be good to include the accusations by former whalers that members of the Japanese whaling crews are stealing large quantities of whale meat for their own personal profit. The ICR seems to know of this and does nothing about it. See http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20100609a9.html -- Westwind273 ( talk) 04:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the article could use references from Jun Morikawa's book "Whaling in Japan". http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fb20100425a1.html Specifically, the amakudari system of corruption between government bureaucrats and politicians serves to take control of the Japanese government away from the Japanese people themselves. It is reminiscent of the military government (軍事政権)that took control of Japan in the years leading up to World War II and led Japan on a similar path that antagonized the international community. The ICR strikes at the very nature of democracy itself. -- Westwind273 ( talk) 11:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know if the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami damaged the ICR whaling fleet? The Whaling fleet was headed back to home port according to this 18 February 2011 press release on the ICR official wwebsite: http://www.icrwhale.org/pdf/110218ReleaseENG.pdf Dreammaker182 ( talk) 18:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Is this just vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.4.248 ( talk) 21:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I remove this addition as the information is groundless and misleading. Please see these. [2] and [3]. Oda Mari ( talk) 09:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I just removed this from the External Links section, because I fail to see the relevance to ICR. If anyone feels it is relevant, then please figure out how to work it in as reference. Good luck doing that, especially since the paper is about the North Atlantic.
Groll†ech ( talk) 22:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Multiple reliable NPOV sources state "earthquake recovery funds" were granted to ICR for the 2011-2012 whale hunt. user:Veritas_Fans has repeatedly removed this language and removed the references providing it because he claims it is misleading . Yet as the referenced sources explicitly use the term "earthquake recovery funds", the removal of such terminology/sources amounts to biasing the article, misrepresenting the sources, and white-washing the topic. As multiple reliable NPOV sources state "earthquake recovery funds", this is what the article should reflect. ~Autumnal Monk~ talk 03:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Institute of Cetacean Research. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The article at least twice states that "some environmental groups oppose research whaling, claiming it is a cover for commercial whaling" (paraphrased). I would have assumed that the fact that quite a large number of environmental groups share this view would make "many" a better indication of the number/proportion of said groups that share said view. Regards, Aardwolf A380 ( talk) 11:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. Regards, Aardwolf A380 ( talk) 23:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Institute of Cetacean Research. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Institute of Cetacean Research. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Institute of Cetacean Research. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Institute of Cetacean Research article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have added an extra info. The previious article appear to imply that ICR is a instiute invented solely to provide cover for commercial whaling which is not the case. It has been a genuine research institute way before the whaling become a political issue. It had to absorbed whaling facility because it previously relied its scientific data on commercial whaling operation which ended after the ban. It now fund whaling operation from the sale of whale meat. FWBOarticle 11:41, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
References
I'm wondering if the quotation marks around "research" in places where it's not a direct quote are appropriate. If the claim is that it is a research organization - then it should be called that (sans quotes) until there is conclusive evidence that it is not. I completely agree that it's pretty clear that they are a front for a commercial whaling enterprise - but it's an encyclopedia, and "pretty clear" doesn't really cut it. Yes? I know such things are likely to be contentious for people who are passionate about these isuses - so I want to mention it here before I make the change so as to avoid an edit war. Lekoman ( talk) 11:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
This article shows a very clear bias in just about every way imaginable.
1. "research" scare quotes. This apparently has to do with whether there are or aren't peer-reviewed reports. According to this link there are several every year. I don't think wikipedia is in a position to determine how much research can be attributed to "one" scientist either. - http://www.icrwhale.org/JARPAResults.htm - http://www.icrwhale.org/JARPA91paper.htm Or do we have sources to say that Jpn. J. Zoo Wildl. Med., Journal of Reproduction and Development, J.Cetacean Res.Manage, etc. are not peer-reviewed journals?
- "The ICR hunts and kills nearly a thousand whales yearly [5] while claiming that it is necessary for cetacean "research". The IRC has produced less than 10 research papers including only one 2001[6], none of which are peer-reviewed.[7]."
Odd, I count 10 published papers since 2007 alone. http://www.icrwhale.org/JARPA91paper.htm
2. In the controversy section there is a lot of issues about ICR research being criticized in IWC. However, IWC has also expressed approval. There are pro and anti-whaling members of IWC, but it seems only 1 side of that is being presented. http://www.e-kujira.or.jp/iwc/2009funchal/text/text_ext3.html
3. If we're going to include sentences like this: "Environmental groups dispute the Japanese claim of research "as a disguise for commercial whaling, which is banned" I think it's only fair that we include a sentence describing how Japan could quit IWC and whale commercially at their discretion without bothering with research, as Norway and Iceland have done. There is no penalty to leaving IWC.
4. http://www.oceannenvironment.org/japan_is_out_to_kill_1035_whales.htm Is this really the kind of source you want to put into an Encyclopedia? I'm sure there is something far less sensationalist than "TERRORISM against Whales."
5. Accusing people of being paid by ICR because they make a good point on the talk page is pretty pathetic.
That's all I've got for now. I look forward to seeing this article look less like a propaganda tool. 24.35.12.76 ( talk) 19:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, no ICR logo, but instead a picture of a whaling harpoon? 71.160.221.11 ( talk) 20:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I've just removed a sentence that read:
The source, Hardline warrior in war to save the whale, is an article about Sea Sheperd's Watson and their campaign against whaling. I was expecting the article to quote Watson calling the ICR that, in which case we could amend the sentence along the lines of:
The quote, however, comes from the nameless author of the article (or editorial?). I find the bias and inaccuracies in this article as well as the notability and relevance of the author and the remark such that it does not belong. The viewpoint is well represented. We don't need to give a platform for this drivel. -- Swift ( talk) 22:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Undoubtedly this is incorrectly formatted comment. Use of Sea Shepherd propaganda machine to source harvest numbers does little to provide impartial and unbiased perspective. If numbers of harvested animals are sourced to organizations infamous for their altercations with the organization in question, we can hardly assume unbiased information is included. Major media outlets and government filings should be sourced as reliable sources of data. Currently this article is a detriment to Wikipedia, and the use of this source is akin to sourcing "The Eternal Jew" for an article on the history of Judaism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.102.237.50 ( talk) 23:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
This info also appears in the Whaling in Japan article, almost verbatim except for the graph there. As I & others note in Talk:Whaling in Japan this info shouldn't be in both articles [in full].. The "research" doesn't qualify as scientific because it's not peer-reviewed, and thus should not be given undue weight here. The extensive JARPA/JARPN sections may belong in one or both of the articles, but not in both at full length. In one or the other, they should be summarized and a link to the full version included. PrBeacon ( talk) 08:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
In the Controversy section, I think it would be good to include the accusations by former whalers that members of the Japanese whaling crews are stealing large quantities of whale meat for their own personal profit. The ICR seems to know of this and does nothing about it. See http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20100609a9.html -- Westwind273 ( talk) 04:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the article could use references from Jun Morikawa's book "Whaling in Japan". http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fb20100425a1.html Specifically, the amakudari system of corruption between government bureaucrats and politicians serves to take control of the Japanese government away from the Japanese people themselves. It is reminiscent of the military government (軍事政権)that took control of Japan in the years leading up to World War II and led Japan on a similar path that antagonized the international community. The ICR strikes at the very nature of democracy itself. -- Westwind273 ( talk) 11:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know if the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami damaged the ICR whaling fleet? The Whaling fleet was headed back to home port according to this 18 February 2011 press release on the ICR official wwebsite: http://www.icrwhale.org/pdf/110218ReleaseENG.pdf Dreammaker182 ( talk) 18:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Is this just vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.4.248 ( talk) 21:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I remove this addition as the information is groundless and misleading. Please see these. [2] and [3]. Oda Mari ( talk) 09:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I just removed this from the External Links section, because I fail to see the relevance to ICR. If anyone feels it is relevant, then please figure out how to work it in as reference. Good luck doing that, especially since the paper is about the North Atlantic.
Groll†ech ( talk) 22:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Multiple reliable NPOV sources state "earthquake recovery funds" were granted to ICR for the 2011-2012 whale hunt. user:Veritas_Fans has repeatedly removed this language and removed the references providing it because he claims it is misleading . Yet as the referenced sources explicitly use the term "earthquake recovery funds", the removal of such terminology/sources amounts to biasing the article, misrepresenting the sources, and white-washing the topic. As multiple reliable NPOV sources state "earthquake recovery funds", this is what the article should reflect. ~Autumnal Monk~ talk 03:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Institute of Cetacean Research. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The article at least twice states that "some environmental groups oppose research whaling, claiming it is a cover for commercial whaling" (paraphrased). I would have assumed that the fact that quite a large number of environmental groups share this view would make "many" a better indication of the number/proportion of said groups that share said view. Regards, Aardwolf A380 ( talk) 11:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. Regards, Aardwolf A380 ( talk) 23:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Institute of Cetacean Research. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Institute of Cetacean Research. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Institute of Cetacean Research. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)