![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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)
It is a good historic picture, but I tend to agree that it is not entirely appropriate to the article. The blood and guts do not strike me as problematic: whaling is an inherently messy business, and need not 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.51.132.154 ( talk) 21:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
User:SqueakBox removed the link to the St. Kitts and Nevis Declaration in the lead. [1] 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)
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)
This is still not fixed. If I was an expert i would fix it. How can the word "harpoon" be not be in an article about whaling. It lacks all info on the process. Hondaracer ( talk) 23:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
"The sharpest point of debate over whaling today concerns the conservation status of hunted species."
I don't agree with this statement at all. I believe ethics is the "sharpest point of debate." How could sustainability be the sharpest point of debate when its not the biggest issue? I mean, can anyone here for a fact say that the majority of whaling today is unsustainable? Or that a species or population is threatened due to hunting alone (re. J stock of minke whales in the western North Pacific)? Or even that a small portion of whaling today is unsustainable? I have never heard legitimate arguments (an exception being perhaps the future (possible) exploitation of humpbacks south of Australia and Oceania) from environmental groups about whaling being unsustainable, only that it is "cruel and inhumane" because whales "feel pain" etc. Or they use the supposed intelligence (which I see little of) of whales as an argument against hunting them.
I propose rewording it. Perhaps it should say "The sharpest point of debate over whaling today is the cruelty involved in the hunt." Yes/No? If no one replies in a week, I'll be changing it to the above sentence, or something similar. Jonas Poole ( talk) 02:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, further to this, I've gone ahead and deleted the troublesome sentence, as I can't see how it can be justified. There's no way we can say with confidence that conservation status is indeed 'the sharpest point of debate'. Hope that's cool. Jonathanmills ( talk) 19:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi all,
Just wanted to introduce myself after making so many edits!
I'm certainly not here to be disruptive and I realise this is a controversial topic, but I believe the facts are as I have suggested. (People who don't believe that might want to check out the (US) EPA (Environmental Protection Agency - government body) report -- http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:zuaCnizYixwJ:www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/presentations/exposures.ppt -- and the advice of the relevant official bodies in Iceland: http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:cg0t6SRijYAJ:ust.is/media/fraedsluefni/hrefnukjot_ofl_f_barnshafandi-a_ensku.doc
(sorry for the terrible links! it's the best I could do at the mo)
It also appears to me that the anti-whaling lobby regularly conflates the issue of eating whale *meat* with that of eating the *blubber*, when the two are apparently quite distinct in terms of safety (blubber has a far higher concentration of toxins). I'm just wondering if the same has happened in the paragraph in the article, as it talks about 'whale meat products'... I think it would be worthwhile to make this distinction explicit.
Finally, I deleted half of the last sentence, as I think it's a fudge to point out that whale meat has characteristics in common with *all* types of meat (it's redundant information). However, I also think the sentence now looks a little threadbare there by itself, so I wonder if it should be deleted entirely. On the other hand, I think it does serve a purpose, as some in the anti-whaling crowd have gone as far as to make the ludicrous charge that whale meat is nutritionally 'junk food'! Cheers Jonathanmills ( talk) 23:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi all,
I just wanted to take issue with the following, unsourced statement in the article:
"Anti-whaling groups say this method of killing [explosive harpoon] is cruel, particularly if carried out by inexperienced gunners, because a whale can take several minutes OR EVEN HOURS to die." (my emphasis)
I have no doubt anti-whaling groups make that claim, but I also strongly doubt the claim. Having looked into the topic, official Japanese and Norwegian kill times are between 2 and 3 minutes, and the LONGEST death time in recent years was 14 minutes (this made the newspapers specifically in anti-whaling countries).
I don't think for a second we (Wikipedia) should be reporting the statements of anti-whaling groups when they're clearly wrong...
I'm writing this just to see if anyone corrects me or has any other info, but if I don't hear back (no rush or anything, I'll give it a week at least) I am definitely going to delete that statement.
Cheers Jonathanmills ( talk) 23:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
(reverse indent) That SUCKS that someone removed the info!
As for the Japanese whalers, the figure for instantaneous kills IS actually significantly lower (it's only 40% as opposed to the Norwegians' 80%) -- this is because their scientific-research programme necessitates avoiding head shots (they use the inside of the ear to determine the whale's age, so need it intact).
Of course, I've pointed out to AW'ers many times before that the reason the Japanese are forced into conducting research whaling rather than regular commercial whaling is of course the (basically illegal) intransigience of anti-whaling countries! ;-)
Actually, this is all good info to be in the article. Just need to find the proper references. Jonathanmills ( talk) 17:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Matt,
I don't think there should be a section about TTD outside of the 'arguments' section, because I don't really see how it is relevant to whaling EXCEPT as it bears on arguments for and against it.
As for the 'these people claim this, those people claim that' format, I know what you mean that it can be a little tedious at times, but as far as I can see it's pretty much the only way (and the recommended one) to deal with controversial topics on Wikipedia. Jonathanmills ( talk) 16:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi all,
I didn't mean to annoy anyone or take too bold a step in deleting that picture (the one that was at the top of the article) but as someone pointed out, it's not even really a proper picture of whaling, rather a scientific expedition which landed a whale.
It does look a little threadbare now, though, so I was thinking it could be good to maybe have three pictures, one of ancient whaling (ie as old as we can find), one of old whaling (a century or two ago -- and the picture currently up there would do nicely in that regard) and then one of modern-day whaling (a Norwegian/Icelandic or Japanese whaling ship).
Any thoughts? I'm not planning to do anything about this right away (I've never inserted a picture before as I'm not sure about the whole copyright thing -- also I'm not sure how to do it, although that is less of an issue) so if anyone thinks this is a good idea and wants to take it upon themselves, I'd be more than happy. Cheers Jonathanmills ( talk) 10:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi guys,
I've just made a somewhat fundamental (although not immediately obvious) change to the way the page is categorised, as I think in its previous state this article focuses inappropriately (given its title) on modern whaling -- and also the IWC moratorium, although that's another issue (I'm not saying the IWC moratorium shouldn't be mentioned, as it is an important modern issue, but rather that it be mentioned at or near the bottom of each country's information rather than at the top).
Anyway, I just wanted to see if anyone else had any feedback on this issue, as I'm now wondering if another sub-article might not be worthwhile containing the modern whaling countries and what's going on with them (which is essentially what we have at the moment), as I think it could well be a topic of some specific interest.
Cheers Jonathanmills ( talk) 13:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
In the sentence, "The widely accepted notion[55] that whales are sentient is thought to be reason enough not to harm or exploit them in any way," the source for the "widely accepted notion" statement is sourced to a relatively extreme anti-hunting website that uses a few select quotes in an argument against using lab mice. It is hardly what one would refer to as a reputable source. The site is stating that ALL animals are sentient, not just whales.
I am going to do a few edits to make it a less authoritative-sounding statement, and to reflect that it is in essence an opinion from a small group of people. nf utvol ( talk) 23:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree the entire abolitionist perspective section should be deleted. This is an article on whaling. While the abolitionist perspective informs some of the opposition to whaling, it is by no means exclusive to whales and whaling as mentioned in the above comment. I'd have no problem if it was worked into the text elsewhere, but it doesn't make sense as its' own section in this article. I'd confidently delete it right now, but I'll defer to others who have done the bulk of the work on this article. If there's a good case to be made for keeping it as its' own segment (presently the concluding segment of the entire article),I'd be interested to hear it. It seems more appropriate to a whale specific sub-section of an animal rights entry, or possibly an 'anti-whaling' (or some such term) section could be created on this page summarizing the range of opposing perspectives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.51.133.246 ( talk) 21:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Well...I can see your reasoning for keeping it; for some reason I missed the fact that it came at the end of the 'opposition to whaling' sub-section. Although, I'd argue that my mistake is at the heart of the reason why it ought to be deleted: basically, it doesn't connect well to the preceding points of opposition. Each preceding point is specific to whaling (fisheries, pollutants, sustainability, etc.), while the abolitionist point is markedly non-specific. It's not at all critical to me whether it stays or goes, but I would add that once we enter into the realm of philosophical/dogmatic reasons against whaling, we've stepped into a territory that requires the inclusion of a bunch of perspectives: those who feel whales are 'especially special' animals ('cetaphiles'?), the fringe who feels they are telepathic emissaries, and worse. It gets difficult to know when to draw the line. Perhaps the whole thing can be addressed by re-titling the sub-heading 'philosophical objections to whaling' or something like that, creating room for the inclusion of a bunch of perspectives, without particularily privileging the abolitionist perspective. As it stands, it kind of reads as though this is the only such objection to whaling. Not nearly as big a deal as my word count on the topic would indicate, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.51.133.246 ( talk) 18:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
the problem with that is they are intelligent, which deserves its own section. its not just extreme groups that say it. 69.115.204.217 ( talk) 23:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Before I get stuck into this, I´d appreciate some opinions. As it stands, large swathes of the article have little to do with the subject of Whaling itself, more to do with animal rights, controversy over moral and political aspects of whaling and out and out propaganda arguements from both sides of the debate. I propose to edit the article severly - and link to a new section/article titled moral and political aspects of the whaling debate. ( open to other suggestions ;) ) Other than a brief descrption of the fact that there is considerable debate surrounding whaling, I´d move and edit a lot to the new article section. I´d move most of section 4 as well as edit drastically the refernces and links( which frankly looks ridiculous as to the number of pro and anti links to the same info ) I´ll copy the text and work offwiki on it and edit in one lump once done. Any comments and suggestions or opinions welcome please SammytheSeal ( talk) 10:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the opinions/suggestions folks. The Whaling debate sounds tickety boo to me, I´ll add to it under poltics, NGO´s, etc etc. I´m pretty much done wih the off wiki edit - just need to copyedit the "new" article. Once thats done I´ll get to work- I imagine i´ll need some help with tables etc- so feel free to leap in and restructure both when I get into trouble ( as I´m sure I will lol ). I´ve half done additions to methods ( how modern whaling is done today ) and I´ll add that as I go on, particularly from the norwegian perspective. cheers SammytheSeal ( talk) 04:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Pengo, I respectfuly disagree. Most of the lower half of the page has little to do with whaling per se, its politics and POV´s ... SammytheSeal ( talk) 05:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi again - There will be a short summary identifying the fact that whaling is a controversial subject, from a political perspective as well as a conservation and moral perspective. The link to the new page will be above that summary. Feel free to edit it mercilessly once its done ( I expect no less lol ). However, you can´t have a detailed explanation of the politics and the "gaming " within the IWC without getting way sidetracked and adding all of the NGO stuff/ arguements that are presently there ( thats how it got there in the first place - and its why the damn article is so bloated - I have a fair bit to add to the article once I´ve got the edit(s) done - about whaling itself - to be frank, I have´nt added it before simply because I know that it´ll make a bloated article even more bloated. I see no problem with a seperate page adressing all of the above aspects in detail linked prominently from the main whaling page as long as a "short" summary is present - but tbh, I´m not going to get into an edit war over it - if I thought large chunks of the political and NGO arguements were going to be put back into the main page I would´nt bother in the first place - life is too short ;) SammytheSeal ( talk) 18:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Oops ... forgot to add that 99% of the politics surrounding whaling belong in the IWC article anyway - not in the whaling ( IMNSHO ;) SammytheSeal ( talk) 18:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
User:Jonas Poole -- Your edits seem to be informed by your understanding of the truth of the matter, rather than whether the questioned sentences are supported by verified citations:
With all due respect, I must say a priori that the references to 8th century Japanese literature are not diminished in their relevance because you reasonably question the reliability of that feature article in the Melbourne Age. You make me regret having adding this citation. Do you see my point? I would have thought another approach would have been better in this narrow context. Your personal POV may affect your close scrutiny of other aspects of this article, but I would have thought the 8th century references should have remained undisturbed -- or at worst, you might have attached a "needs citation tag." I myself didn't notice any reference to whales the last time I looked at the Kojiki or at Man'yōshū, but I would not have thought that removing any mention of these classic sources was the best of all possible options.
In my view, the BBC reference mandates a quite different treatment of the anecdote about Shinran Shonin in this historical aspect of the "whaling" article. I'm persuaded you were quite wrong to delete this particular paragraph. Also, the paragraph about group hunting stands on a different basis.
It seems to me that these rational arguments come to naught in light of what you have done. You've substituted text with no in-line citations for text with clear, precise, accurate (but plausibly insufficient) in-line citations. That makes sense only if you are making this edit with a specific POV in mind ... but, in any case, it just doesn't make sense for zero citations to be substituted for any citation whatsoever (even questionable citations) -- even the suspect Melbourne Age citation is better than nothing at all. Do you see my point? No doubt your study of 70+ books has informed your edit, but without citations which explain your edits to any curious reader, I'm afraid that your edits appear to be based on naught but "original research." Again, I can but ask: Do you see my point?
For these reasons, I feel justified in restoring the BBC-supported paragraph and the one about 17th century developments in whale hunting in Japan. When I have located credible support for that paragraph about 8th century poetry and Emperor Jimmu, I will feel justified in restoring that paragraph as well. I would not expect you to delete these paragraphs casually.
Please note that I make no attempt to address the controversial whaling activities of Japanese-flagged ships in the 21st century. In this context, I must tell you that your edit summary note is misplaced. You wrote: "Perhaps you should have added that the Japanese are largely responsible for the depletion of blue, humpback, gray, fin, and other speices of whales in their waters?" The accuracy of this statement is not disputed; but the fact-of-the-matter is that it is not relevant in paragraphs which focus only on pre-17th century whaling in Japanese waters. While your statement might be entirely accurate in relation to the 20th century -- I myself don't know ..., it is inapposite in this quite separate context.
As I parse the issues I identify as relevant, this presents no opportunity for an extended dispute. I only a hope that we can get beyond what I am inclined to construe as a minor misunderstanding. -- Tenmei ( talk) 08:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Small whales? What does this mean? The hunting of ziphiids? Doubtful. The hunting of dolphins/porpoises? Most likely. Therefore it does not fall under the definition of whaling, which is the hunting of great whales, not dolphins or porpoises. The statement removed will remain removed as it does not refer to actual whaling. Jonas Poole ( talk) 23:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
You gave a reference to "whale-hunting" in some poem. What species was taken? Does it refer to the great whales, or some species of small cetacean. Was it opportunistic, subsistence, or commercial? Can't say. Organized shore whaling (the hunting of the great whales) did not begin until the 1570s (See Encycopedia of Marine Mammals, Kasuya (2002). Some vague reference in a poem is not strong evidence of whaling. Nor is the mention of eating whales. Unless it specifically states that a whale (not a dolphin, porpoise, etc) was caught for subsistence reasons, commercial, or what have you, it is not evidence of whaling (with few exceptions; for example, large amount of oil/meat produced/obtained regularly, etc). Jonas Poole ( talk) 23:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Jonas Poole, you reverted the deletion of the following unsourced, broad and vague claim:
I will ask to have it removed again soon if there is no evidence to support this claim. Regards, Mondeo ( talk) 08:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Unsourced claim moved here for reference and further research:
Regards, Mondeo ( talk) 14:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Jonas Poole -- You deleted references here. Was your concern related to the facts asserted or the source citation or something else? Your edit summary left me uncertain about your reasoning. You note:
I was not expressing a personal view -- rather, I was only making the limited contribution of those assertions-of-fact which were published in the cited source. -- Tenmei ( talk) 01:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I understand there is a "Whaling in America" page at wikipedia, but there should be something on this page that at least refers to it, given that there is a history section. There is no mention whatsoever here that whaling took place in the US before "modern" times. "Modern" is an ambiguous term in the context of this page. When did historical whaling end and modern whaling begin? Was there ever such a division, and if so, in what sense? ( Declair ( talk) 19:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC))
It now says
And it is true that even earlier there were buddhist admonitions about eating any kind of meat but this has very little to do with whaling and this passage specificially references fish. What is it doing here?-- Timtak ( talk) 11:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
From the first line of the article:
"Whaling is the hunting of a whale and they are illigiles that dates back to at least 6,000 BC."
What exactly does this mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.115.3 ( talk) 02:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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)
It is a good historic picture, but I tend to agree that it is not entirely appropriate to the article. The blood and guts do not strike me as problematic: whaling is an inherently messy business, and need not 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.51.132.154 ( talk) 21:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
User:SqueakBox removed the link to the St. Kitts and Nevis Declaration in the lead. [1] 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)
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)
This is still not fixed. If I was an expert i would fix it. How can the word "harpoon" be not be in an article about whaling. It lacks all info on the process. Hondaracer ( talk) 23:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
"The sharpest point of debate over whaling today concerns the conservation status of hunted species."
I don't agree with this statement at all. I believe ethics is the "sharpest point of debate." How could sustainability be the sharpest point of debate when its not the biggest issue? I mean, can anyone here for a fact say that the majority of whaling today is unsustainable? Or that a species or population is threatened due to hunting alone (re. J stock of minke whales in the western North Pacific)? Or even that a small portion of whaling today is unsustainable? I have never heard legitimate arguments (an exception being perhaps the future (possible) exploitation of humpbacks south of Australia and Oceania) from environmental groups about whaling being unsustainable, only that it is "cruel and inhumane" because whales "feel pain" etc. Or they use the supposed intelligence (which I see little of) of whales as an argument against hunting them.
I propose rewording it. Perhaps it should say "The sharpest point of debate over whaling today is the cruelty involved in the hunt." Yes/No? If no one replies in a week, I'll be changing it to the above sentence, or something similar. Jonas Poole ( talk) 02:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, further to this, I've gone ahead and deleted the troublesome sentence, as I can't see how it can be justified. There's no way we can say with confidence that conservation status is indeed 'the sharpest point of debate'. Hope that's cool. Jonathanmills ( talk) 19:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi all,
Just wanted to introduce myself after making so many edits!
I'm certainly not here to be disruptive and I realise this is a controversial topic, but I believe the facts are as I have suggested. (People who don't believe that might want to check out the (US) EPA (Environmental Protection Agency - government body) report -- http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:zuaCnizYixwJ:www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/presentations/exposures.ppt -- and the advice of the relevant official bodies in Iceland: http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:cg0t6SRijYAJ:ust.is/media/fraedsluefni/hrefnukjot_ofl_f_barnshafandi-a_ensku.doc
(sorry for the terrible links! it's the best I could do at the mo)
It also appears to me that the anti-whaling lobby regularly conflates the issue of eating whale *meat* with that of eating the *blubber*, when the two are apparently quite distinct in terms of safety (blubber has a far higher concentration of toxins). I'm just wondering if the same has happened in the paragraph in the article, as it talks about 'whale meat products'... I think it would be worthwhile to make this distinction explicit.
Finally, I deleted half of the last sentence, as I think it's a fudge to point out that whale meat has characteristics in common with *all* types of meat (it's redundant information). However, I also think the sentence now looks a little threadbare there by itself, so I wonder if it should be deleted entirely. On the other hand, I think it does serve a purpose, as some in the anti-whaling crowd have gone as far as to make the ludicrous charge that whale meat is nutritionally 'junk food'! Cheers Jonathanmills ( talk) 23:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi all,
I just wanted to take issue with the following, unsourced statement in the article:
"Anti-whaling groups say this method of killing [explosive harpoon] is cruel, particularly if carried out by inexperienced gunners, because a whale can take several minutes OR EVEN HOURS to die." (my emphasis)
I have no doubt anti-whaling groups make that claim, but I also strongly doubt the claim. Having looked into the topic, official Japanese and Norwegian kill times are between 2 and 3 minutes, and the LONGEST death time in recent years was 14 minutes (this made the newspapers specifically in anti-whaling countries).
I don't think for a second we (Wikipedia) should be reporting the statements of anti-whaling groups when they're clearly wrong...
I'm writing this just to see if anyone corrects me or has any other info, but if I don't hear back (no rush or anything, I'll give it a week at least) I am definitely going to delete that statement.
Cheers Jonathanmills ( talk) 23:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
(reverse indent) That SUCKS that someone removed the info!
As for the Japanese whalers, the figure for instantaneous kills IS actually significantly lower (it's only 40% as opposed to the Norwegians' 80%) -- this is because their scientific-research programme necessitates avoiding head shots (they use the inside of the ear to determine the whale's age, so need it intact).
Of course, I've pointed out to AW'ers many times before that the reason the Japanese are forced into conducting research whaling rather than regular commercial whaling is of course the (basically illegal) intransigience of anti-whaling countries! ;-)
Actually, this is all good info to be in the article. Just need to find the proper references. Jonathanmills ( talk) 17:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Matt,
I don't think there should be a section about TTD outside of the 'arguments' section, because I don't really see how it is relevant to whaling EXCEPT as it bears on arguments for and against it.
As for the 'these people claim this, those people claim that' format, I know what you mean that it can be a little tedious at times, but as far as I can see it's pretty much the only way (and the recommended one) to deal with controversial topics on Wikipedia. Jonathanmills ( talk) 16:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi all,
I didn't mean to annoy anyone or take too bold a step in deleting that picture (the one that was at the top of the article) but as someone pointed out, it's not even really a proper picture of whaling, rather a scientific expedition which landed a whale.
It does look a little threadbare now, though, so I was thinking it could be good to maybe have three pictures, one of ancient whaling (ie as old as we can find), one of old whaling (a century or two ago -- and the picture currently up there would do nicely in that regard) and then one of modern-day whaling (a Norwegian/Icelandic or Japanese whaling ship).
Any thoughts? I'm not planning to do anything about this right away (I've never inserted a picture before as I'm not sure about the whole copyright thing -- also I'm not sure how to do it, although that is less of an issue) so if anyone thinks this is a good idea and wants to take it upon themselves, I'd be more than happy. Cheers Jonathanmills ( talk) 10:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi guys,
I've just made a somewhat fundamental (although not immediately obvious) change to the way the page is categorised, as I think in its previous state this article focuses inappropriately (given its title) on modern whaling -- and also the IWC moratorium, although that's another issue (I'm not saying the IWC moratorium shouldn't be mentioned, as it is an important modern issue, but rather that it be mentioned at or near the bottom of each country's information rather than at the top).
Anyway, I just wanted to see if anyone else had any feedback on this issue, as I'm now wondering if another sub-article might not be worthwhile containing the modern whaling countries and what's going on with them (which is essentially what we have at the moment), as I think it could well be a topic of some specific interest.
Cheers Jonathanmills ( talk) 13:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
In the sentence, "The widely accepted notion[55] that whales are sentient is thought to be reason enough not to harm or exploit them in any way," the source for the "widely accepted notion" statement is sourced to a relatively extreme anti-hunting website that uses a few select quotes in an argument against using lab mice. It is hardly what one would refer to as a reputable source. The site is stating that ALL animals are sentient, not just whales.
I am going to do a few edits to make it a less authoritative-sounding statement, and to reflect that it is in essence an opinion from a small group of people. nf utvol ( talk) 23:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree the entire abolitionist perspective section should be deleted. This is an article on whaling. While the abolitionist perspective informs some of the opposition to whaling, it is by no means exclusive to whales and whaling as mentioned in the above comment. I'd have no problem if it was worked into the text elsewhere, but it doesn't make sense as its' own section in this article. I'd confidently delete it right now, but I'll defer to others who have done the bulk of the work on this article. If there's a good case to be made for keeping it as its' own segment (presently the concluding segment of the entire article),I'd be interested to hear it. It seems more appropriate to a whale specific sub-section of an animal rights entry, or possibly an 'anti-whaling' (or some such term) section could be created on this page summarizing the range of opposing perspectives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.51.133.246 ( talk) 21:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Well...I can see your reasoning for keeping it; for some reason I missed the fact that it came at the end of the 'opposition to whaling' sub-section. Although, I'd argue that my mistake is at the heart of the reason why it ought to be deleted: basically, it doesn't connect well to the preceding points of opposition. Each preceding point is specific to whaling (fisheries, pollutants, sustainability, etc.), while the abolitionist point is markedly non-specific. It's not at all critical to me whether it stays or goes, but I would add that once we enter into the realm of philosophical/dogmatic reasons against whaling, we've stepped into a territory that requires the inclusion of a bunch of perspectives: those who feel whales are 'especially special' animals ('cetaphiles'?), the fringe who feels they are telepathic emissaries, and worse. It gets difficult to know when to draw the line. Perhaps the whole thing can be addressed by re-titling the sub-heading 'philosophical objections to whaling' or something like that, creating room for the inclusion of a bunch of perspectives, without particularily privileging the abolitionist perspective. As it stands, it kind of reads as though this is the only such objection to whaling. Not nearly as big a deal as my word count on the topic would indicate, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.51.133.246 ( talk) 18:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
the problem with that is they are intelligent, which deserves its own section. its not just extreme groups that say it. 69.115.204.217 ( talk) 23:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Before I get stuck into this, I´d appreciate some opinions. As it stands, large swathes of the article have little to do with the subject of Whaling itself, more to do with animal rights, controversy over moral and political aspects of whaling and out and out propaganda arguements from both sides of the debate. I propose to edit the article severly - and link to a new section/article titled moral and political aspects of the whaling debate. ( open to other suggestions ;) ) Other than a brief descrption of the fact that there is considerable debate surrounding whaling, I´d move and edit a lot to the new article section. I´d move most of section 4 as well as edit drastically the refernces and links( which frankly looks ridiculous as to the number of pro and anti links to the same info ) I´ll copy the text and work offwiki on it and edit in one lump once done. Any comments and suggestions or opinions welcome please SammytheSeal ( talk) 10:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the opinions/suggestions folks. The Whaling debate sounds tickety boo to me, I´ll add to it under poltics, NGO´s, etc etc. I´m pretty much done wih the off wiki edit - just need to copyedit the "new" article. Once thats done I´ll get to work- I imagine i´ll need some help with tables etc- so feel free to leap in and restructure both when I get into trouble ( as I´m sure I will lol ). I´ve half done additions to methods ( how modern whaling is done today ) and I´ll add that as I go on, particularly from the norwegian perspective. cheers SammytheSeal ( talk) 04:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Pengo, I respectfuly disagree. Most of the lower half of the page has little to do with whaling per se, its politics and POV´s ... SammytheSeal ( talk) 05:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi again - There will be a short summary identifying the fact that whaling is a controversial subject, from a political perspective as well as a conservation and moral perspective. The link to the new page will be above that summary. Feel free to edit it mercilessly once its done ( I expect no less lol ). However, you can´t have a detailed explanation of the politics and the "gaming " within the IWC without getting way sidetracked and adding all of the NGO stuff/ arguements that are presently there ( thats how it got there in the first place - and its why the damn article is so bloated - I have a fair bit to add to the article once I´ve got the edit(s) done - about whaling itself - to be frank, I have´nt added it before simply because I know that it´ll make a bloated article even more bloated. I see no problem with a seperate page adressing all of the above aspects in detail linked prominently from the main whaling page as long as a "short" summary is present - but tbh, I´m not going to get into an edit war over it - if I thought large chunks of the political and NGO arguements were going to be put back into the main page I would´nt bother in the first place - life is too short ;) SammytheSeal ( talk) 18:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Oops ... forgot to add that 99% of the politics surrounding whaling belong in the IWC article anyway - not in the whaling ( IMNSHO ;) SammytheSeal ( talk) 18:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
User:Jonas Poole -- Your edits seem to be informed by your understanding of the truth of the matter, rather than whether the questioned sentences are supported by verified citations:
With all due respect, I must say a priori that the references to 8th century Japanese literature are not diminished in their relevance because you reasonably question the reliability of that feature article in the Melbourne Age. You make me regret having adding this citation. Do you see my point? I would have thought another approach would have been better in this narrow context. Your personal POV may affect your close scrutiny of other aspects of this article, but I would have thought the 8th century references should have remained undisturbed -- or at worst, you might have attached a "needs citation tag." I myself didn't notice any reference to whales the last time I looked at the Kojiki or at Man'yōshū, but I would not have thought that removing any mention of these classic sources was the best of all possible options.
In my view, the BBC reference mandates a quite different treatment of the anecdote about Shinran Shonin in this historical aspect of the "whaling" article. I'm persuaded you were quite wrong to delete this particular paragraph. Also, the paragraph about group hunting stands on a different basis.
It seems to me that these rational arguments come to naught in light of what you have done. You've substituted text with no in-line citations for text with clear, precise, accurate (but plausibly insufficient) in-line citations. That makes sense only if you are making this edit with a specific POV in mind ... but, in any case, it just doesn't make sense for zero citations to be substituted for any citation whatsoever (even questionable citations) -- even the suspect Melbourne Age citation is better than nothing at all. Do you see my point? No doubt your study of 70+ books has informed your edit, but without citations which explain your edits to any curious reader, I'm afraid that your edits appear to be based on naught but "original research." Again, I can but ask: Do you see my point?
For these reasons, I feel justified in restoring the BBC-supported paragraph and the one about 17th century developments in whale hunting in Japan. When I have located credible support for that paragraph about 8th century poetry and Emperor Jimmu, I will feel justified in restoring that paragraph as well. I would not expect you to delete these paragraphs casually.
Please note that I make no attempt to address the controversial whaling activities of Japanese-flagged ships in the 21st century. In this context, I must tell you that your edit summary note is misplaced. You wrote: "Perhaps you should have added that the Japanese are largely responsible for the depletion of blue, humpback, gray, fin, and other speices of whales in their waters?" The accuracy of this statement is not disputed; but the fact-of-the-matter is that it is not relevant in paragraphs which focus only on pre-17th century whaling in Japanese waters. While your statement might be entirely accurate in relation to the 20th century -- I myself don't know ..., it is inapposite in this quite separate context.
As I parse the issues I identify as relevant, this presents no opportunity for an extended dispute. I only a hope that we can get beyond what I am inclined to construe as a minor misunderstanding. -- Tenmei ( talk) 08:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Small whales? What does this mean? The hunting of ziphiids? Doubtful. The hunting of dolphins/porpoises? Most likely. Therefore it does not fall under the definition of whaling, which is the hunting of great whales, not dolphins or porpoises. The statement removed will remain removed as it does not refer to actual whaling. Jonas Poole ( talk) 23:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
You gave a reference to "whale-hunting" in some poem. What species was taken? Does it refer to the great whales, or some species of small cetacean. Was it opportunistic, subsistence, or commercial? Can't say. Organized shore whaling (the hunting of the great whales) did not begin until the 1570s (See Encycopedia of Marine Mammals, Kasuya (2002). Some vague reference in a poem is not strong evidence of whaling. Nor is the mention of eating whales. Unless it specifically states that a whale (not a dolphin, porpoise, etc) was caught for subsistence reasons, commercial, or what have you, it is not evidence of whaling (with few exceptions; for example, large amount of oil/meat produced/obtained regularly, etc). Jonas Poole ( talk) 23:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Jonas Poole, you reverted the deletion of the following unsourced, broad and vague claim:
I will ask to have it removed again soon if there is no evidence to support this claim. Regards, Mondeo ( talk) 08:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Unsourced claim moved here for reference and further research:
Regards, Mondeo ( talk) 14:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Jonas Poole -- You deleted references here. Was your concern related to the facts asserted or the source citation or something else? Your edit summary left me uncertain about your reasoning. You note:
I was not expressing a personal view -- rather, I was only making the limited contribution of those assertions-of-fact which were published in the cited source. -- Tenmei ( talk) 01:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I understand there is a "Whaling in America" page at wikipedia, but there should be something on this page that at least refers to it, given that there is a history section. There is no mention whatsoever here that whaling took place in the US before "modern" times. "Modern" is an ambiguous term in the context of this page. When did historical whaling end and modern whaling begin? Was there ever such a division, and if so, in what sense? ( Declair ( talk) 19:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC))
It now says
And it is true that even earlier there were buddhist admonitions about eating any kind of meat but this has very little to do with whaling and this passage specificially references fish. What is it doing here?-- Timtak ( talk) 11:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
From the first line of the article:
"Whaling is the hunting of a whale and they are illigiles that dates back to at least 6,000 BC."
What exactly does this mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.115.3 ( talk) 02:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |