![]() | This page 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. |
Average consumption per day a person in Japan. [ [1]] The consumption is 4646 tons a year in Japan.-- 218.112.38.38 ( talk) 18:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I know that this question is very late, but maybe someone "in the know" will spot it and respond. Can anyone tell me why it is that the farming of cattle, sheep, pigs is quite OK. That is, the deliberate insemination and rearing of offspring, with the sole intention of killing them for food. But the "harvesting" of what are otherwise wild animals is so frowned upon? 212.139.244.103 ( talk) 08:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
The use of the phrase "where the commercial slaughter of dolphins continues to this day" is very biased. not only is the mention of dolphins off topic, both within the paragrahp and the article as a whole, the use of the word "slaughter" clearly projects a particular moral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.198.110.161 ( talk) 10:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Slaughter sounds mean. People should use nice phrases like "commercial catching of dolphins where the dolphins end up dead" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.219.62 ( talk) 23:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/bsefaq.html
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/disemala/avflu/surv/rpt2_3e.shtml
( talk) 02:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Although slaughter is not necessarily a morally biased word, it is more appropriate to refer to killing a whale as "taking" a whale for the purposes of maintaining neutrality. Cetamata ( talk) 05:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Hans, if you're joining this discussion with the mindset that killing whales is on par with mafia crime, child pornography and torture, you're going to have a hard time. Please check your bias at the door. I have no problem with the word "slaughter". It just doesn't apply here. My feeling for it matches the slaughter article which states that "Commonly it refers to killing and butchering of domestic livestock." Similarly, harvest hardly fits with killing animals. Catch, kill, and take are, I think, all used appropriately in the article. "Catch" is the most general term, "kill" refers to the actual killing, and "take" to the taking. I can see how this is a sticking point for evangelicals. For the anti-whaling side the main issue about the catch is the kill (for being an immoral act) but to the pro side whalers hunt to take something home, not to extinguish life for it's own sake. To conclude (this section, hopefully): "Slaughter" is not appropriate for the killing of whales (as opposed to dolphin drive hunting where dolphins are rounded up and slaughtered). -- Swift ( talk) 10:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree that "take" and "catch" are are industry euphemisms and thus shouldn't be here unqualified. (If someone wanted to include them in a sort of explanatory note or callout on industry terminology, that might work). They've creeped into the article so I'm going back through now to change it. However, I recognize that the terms "kill" and "killed" (and even "slaughter") are insufficient, as well -- they don't include the meat harvesting/processing components of whaling. PrBeacon ( talk) 22:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) The problem with this article using unqualified terms like "take" and "catch" (and even "harvest," arguably) is that these words falsely imply that the whales are not killed -- disregarding the rare to nonexistent 'non-lethal research.'
In contrast to the Japanese whaling, there is the legitimate research of wild animals which are caught, tagged and released for further study. This association is exactly why the terms "take" and "catch" are effective euphemisms by the whaling industry. Furthermore, our audience is not necessarily readers familiar with the common use of these terms. No one here is arguing for "slaughter," by the way, so that point is moot.
PrBeacon (
talk) 07:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
it's not neutral. as stated before, they commonly, actually constantly, use slaughter about pig and cows. "slaughter house". this is the sam thing. hundreds of animals being killed mostly for food. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.115.204.217 (
talk) 13:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Within reason, let's stick to terminology that supports encyclopedic accuracy, and in the case of the controlled killing of a mammal, slaughter is and will be the proper term regardless of the pressure of vandals or other individuals with an emotional or ideological interest in sugar-coating the whaling activities of any country. The word slaughter can not be considered biased unless you mean biased in the favor of the English dictionary, which hopefully we are all familiar with. -- APDEF ( talk) 23:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I just did a big edit on this page, largely weeding out weasels and uncited statements that I couldn't find any support for. I figured I'd leave a comment here in addition to my edit summaries since this is a contested topic.
I removed the toxin section as it was pretty much duplicating content on Whaling. Not on the Japanese side, though, so I added a short sentence on that. Please see that page for more and contribute if you have more to offer on that subject.
I removed some content as I thought it wouldn't contribute much after it was stripped of sub-standard portions. I tried replacing it with fairly solid citable material. The Controversy section now only mentions a couple (I think the most important) issues raised by Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd, respectively. I didn't put anything on individual governments' statements but mentioned that some did object. No citations for that, but I don't think it's something that anyone would object to.
The history section shares a lot of content with the History of whaling#The Japanese Fishery which desperately needs a rewrite anyway.
The Recent events section needs wikification and copy editing as already noted.
I'm contemplating removing the Catch statistics completely in favour of a link to those numbers. -- Swift ( talk) 08:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
shouldn't we be a bit more clear that Sea Shepherd was the one that threw the butyric acid than be ambiguous? 165.21.155.74 ( talk) 12:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Someone had removed a previously referenced comment on the IWC position on JARPA in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. The removal of this portion of text would seem to be politically based vandalisim, and removal of this portion of text again will be challenged on that basis. The IWC position on whaling in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary is highly relevant, and is a neutral position. Just stating what the IWC position is not biased. Please don't vandalize this article. John Moss ( talk) 22:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn`t some mention be made of the two Japanese men working for Greenpeace Japan who face ten year prison sentences? ( see today's Guardian)
The image File:Steve Irwin Collision With Yushin Maru No3 6 Feb 2009.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I object to this revert. [4] The problem is that while the quotation is literal, it is not a literal quotation from the speakers to which we ascribe it but from a Times journalist. In other words: We are lying. The quotation marks must go, and this makes it necessary to reduce the literal quotation. The fact that commercial whaling is banned is important, and I have just rewritten the lead (which had the same problem) to give it a bit more weight. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 23:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion the whaling in Japan page is in dire need of restructuring. There seems to be a great deal of overlap between disputes, controversy and IWC debate. Also, the page does not touch upon the controversy of Japan's whaling prior to the moratorium and there was indeed a great deal of public debate
I believe "Whaling in Japan" should be structured in a new format that addresses historical accuracy more than justification of support/objections...
1) Introduction/Summary
2) Origin/Aboriginal history (whales taken/methods used/time period/use of whale product)
3) Pre-Moratorium Commercial whaling history (whales taken/methods used/international influence on industry/use of whale product)
4) Research whaling/Modern whaling history (whales taken/methods used/reasoning behind research/use of whale products)
5) Coastal Bycatch whaling (whales taken/laws supporting/methods used/use of whale product)
6) Black market whale product
7) Dolphin drives/small cetacean hunting (whales taken/methods used/international influence on industry/use of whale product)
8) IWC Regarding Japan (major decisions - quotas/protected species/small cetaceans/moratorium/science committee/important votes etc)
9) Regulations that apply to Japan pre-moratorium/current (or would apply but for objections)
10) Affect of International Observers
11) Japan economic influence in the IWC
12) Threats to leave IWC
13) Japan IWC representatives
14) International Government objections/support/Japan rebuttal
15) Scientific objections/support/Japan rebuttal
16) NGO/Environmentalist objections/Japan rebuttal
17) Japanese public objections/support/awareness
18) Research performed (published work/results/challenges)
19) Japan ICR in brief (including private companies involved in whaling through ICR)
20) Legal Challenges (Australia in particular has deemed the Antarctic whaling operation illegal for example)/Japan rebuttal
21) Significant non-violent protest (Save the Whales/Save the Whales Again)/Japan rebuttal
22) Significant direct action (Sea Shepherd/Greenpeace) intervention incidents/Japan rebuttal
23) Recent Media attention (Mother-calf photos, Whale Wars, The Cove)/Japan rebuttal
24) Propaganda (whales eat fish and destroy fisheries/eco-terrorism/whale abundance)
25) Trade relations affect on pro/anti-whaling politics
26) Japan government subsidies for whaling industry
27) Food safety concerns (product labeling/Minamata disease)
28) Importation of whale product from Norway/Iceland
29) Recent IMO regulations regarding ship/industrial restrictions that could affect whaling ships
30) Exploitation of other resources relating to whaling (such as krill/forage fish harvesting for aquaculture)
Cetamata (
talk) 20:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Removed a couple of things. Also wanted to mention that most of the list can be removed: "Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a 'See also' section" per WP:SEEALSO. Cptnono ( talk) 09:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The context of the the Ainu in describing aboriginal Japanese whaling is important. Japanese representatives claim there is a tradition of whaling that goes back to the Jomon period as if the same tradition has evolved into modern Japanese culture and modern whaling. However critics argue that the government in Japan does not respect other traditional cultural fishing rights in modern days for a variety of reasons. Nor was the aboriginal cultural status of the Ainu even recognized officially in Japan until 2008. Mentioning this in the history of Japanese whaling maintains a proper context instead of simply making a case for whaling. By stating the historical fact and providing this context the article retains its neutrality. Cetamata ( talk) 18:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Very well. However, I trust you will not remove the same information when it is posted in the controversy section. I'd also appreciate it if you'd address such issues in the controversy section rather than deleting it completely from the article as it is indeed relevant to arguments Japanese representatives have made for rights to coastal whaling and against U.S. native subsistence whaling. Cetamata ( talk) 05:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I have concerns with Cetamata's edits and have adjusted a couple of them. Basic layout, formatting, and citation guidelines are not being followed. Also, it looks like some of the info added have WP:RECENTISM, WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, and WP:SOAPBOX. I have asked the user to make requests here until they are caught up with the standards. Cptnono ( talk) 04:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
;-)
I took out the paragraph on Commodore Perry's opening up of Japan. An earlier version mentioned that one of the reasons for opening up Japan was to secure whaling grounds. The paragraph I removed didn't seem to have much relevance to whaling in Japan so I cut it. We should look for a good resource on that episode in the history of whaling in Japan. This document might be a good start. -- Swift ( talk) 01:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Some of the data in this article is entirely unsupported by robust references. If these are not modified by the end of the week, I will start removing the references, and therefore the information based upon the reference will be re-written as unsupported. One perfect example of a flawed, and biased, reference is http://www.whaling.jp/english/history.html 8: a b "History of Whaling". Japan Whaling Association. http://www.whaling.jp/english/history.html. Retrieved 2009-12-19. "12th Century Hand-harpoon whaling starts in Japan" The reason the source is unreliable is because the source (the Japan Whale Assoc.) has a vested interest in promoting whaling as an ancient practice of cultural significance thus adding weight to the contentious issue of whaling for Japan, therefore providing the same association with further funding. Rather than sourcing from a company which is directly involved in whaling, this information will only be acceptable if sourced from an independent researcher non funded by the whaling industry. The article its self does not actually have any solid references or information about how the data was revealed. If an alternative is not provided, and I am unable to find a satisfactory one, this is the first part of the article I will re-write. Shuggyg ( talk) 14:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
there should be a section stating somthing about how no new scientific infomation comes out of japan about whales. i have researched there webste, and there news section states no new discoverys or information about whales, there diets or anything. rather, its full of biased statements about the "aggression" and "violence" of non-violent anti-whaling groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 ( talk) 23:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Cetamata recently restored sections on the JARPA programs to this article with the note that they had been WP:REMOVEd without discussion. As clarified in the edit summary, these were note removed, simply moved to Institute of Cetacean Research. The research is conducted by the ICR and thus more appropriate there. A link to guide people to that article was prominently placed at the top of the relevant section. -- Swift ( talk) 12:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) The point is, they shouldn't be in both articles, nor as stubs/articles on their own. The "research" doesn't qualify as scientific because it's not peer-reviewed, and thus should not be given undue weight here. PrBeacon ( talk) 00:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Look, whaling is a contentious issue. Anyone reading or editing this page knows that.
However, when you add in statements like "There was considerable opposition for the publication of this paper from scientists based in anti whaling countries. Mark Simmonds, director of science at the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, argued that the paper should have been rejected on ethical grounds." you create a sense of bias.
The issue is a study based on Japanese research that was rejected by several publications (stated in the current article text). If we include every statement against these studies ever made by every conservation group/person we won't have a coherent history section on Japanese whaling.
Without that text we have a clear establishment that the study was published in a peer reviewed journal. That it was first rejected. One scientist who supports it and one scientist who does not support it. That is a suitably neutral presentation. Cetamata ( talk) 03:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I've created a new section for information on published results of whaling research. Anything about published/reviewed papers based on the JARPA and JARPN programs should go there. Cetamata ( talk) 03:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The current edit imply that objection was entirely scientific. However, a newspaper categorically assert the fact that there were oppositions to publication from scientist in anti whaling countries and that there is a quote from such scientist who specifically state that objection was on ethical and not scientific ground. Therefore, deletion of this critical information is not warranted. Vapour ( talk) 14:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Edited text - "There was considerable opposition for the publication of this paper from scientists based in anti whaling countries. Mark Simmonds, director of science at the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, argued that the paper should have been rejected on ethical ground."
It's water weight you bastard. No just kidding. It is readable prose per a dyk check and is under the limit length wise. Certain aspects might have too much weight and it could be broken into too many subsections (not sure) but the size itself is not a problem. Cptnono ( talk) 06:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) No, I think you misread Swift's comments as pro-whaling, or against you for being anti-whaling. He moved the JARPA info to ICR, you copied them back and left them there, as well. If you want to continue this JARPA-thread specifically, I suggest you respond in that secton, above. PrBeacon ( talk) 00:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Please stop changing every "research" title to "claims of research". Remember this article is flagged for neutrality issues. By implying the research is invalid in the title you are inserting bias into the article.
Please cite information on objections to the research in a specific way through statements and evaluations made by authoritative sources in the appropriate way. Cetamata ( talk) 21:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
How does the term "Claims of research" imply that the research is invalid? At best it includes the weight of scientific reason, at worst it casts doubt on it -- which is what the dispute does. There are enough notable sources criticizing Japan/ICR's claims. PrBeacon ( talk) 22:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I've shown many examples where the term "Research Whaling" is used by anti-whaling groups, Japanese whaling organizations, news organizations, and government entities. I believe this is the neutral term in common usage to refer to Japan's whaling programs and it should not be replaced with "Claims of Research".
This is not because of any desire to promote or legitimize Japan's whaling. I believe referring to the whaling as if it is a sham (ie: just a "claim of research" rather than "research of disputed value") negatively affects the neutrality of the article in favor of anti-whaling POV. Cetamata ( talk) 19:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
What about this? Cetamata ( talk) 19:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
As a disclaimer, I am new to discussions here. If I have done (or do) anything offensive by my wording or method of posting my observation, it is certainly unintentional and I would welcome advice so that I may implement appropriate changes.
In the World War II section, when discussing Japan post-surrender, it was stated that General Douglas MacArthur encouraged "Japan to continue whaling in order to provide a cheap source of meat to starving people (and millions of dollars in oil for the USA and Europe)." I do not dispute the claim made. However, I think it appropriate to discuss the source material referenced to support the claim.
If you wish to peruse the source before focusing your no-doubt enraptured attention on the rest of my discussion, I have provided it at the bottom of my post.
I found that the source material appears to be an opinion piece posted on an Australian news site. Insofar as the source article has no source material or peer-review to bolster its own claims, I object that it is improper to engage in what is essentially the transitioning of opinion from an opinion post to an encyclopedia. My recommendation is that more substantial source material should be provided to uphold the statement of US profit, or else the statement should be removed until such time as a source may be provided.
Further, I recommend that an additional source be provided which upholds the historical accuracy of the events surrounding MacArthur's authorization of Japanese whaling. Perhaps a news article from the period, or even a book discussing the events in post-war Japan which references such an article. To be clear, I am after something concrete, or at least some text tied to a documentation, or statement of events from the time period in which we are claiming the events happened. I contend that a referenced or researched piece will more broadly support historical accuracy of the section as a whole.
If I have made the mistake of not providing potential sources to replace the source which I deem defunct, please forgive me, as I am but a babe in the discussion community. Le tme know, and I will do what I can to find something relevant.
Here is the link to the source used: http://www.theage.com.au/news/climate-watch/blame-general-macarthur-for-whaling-row/2007/12/18/1197740272644.html
Bluegrassgemini ( talk) 16:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I find this paragraph: On January 6, 2010, the anti-whaling ship Ady Gil suffered severe damage to its bow after a collision with the Japanese whaling ship Shōnan Maru No. 2, and was abandoned, leaking oil by the Sea Shepherds.[134] Video footage of the incident was taken by both a crew member of the Shonan Maru No. 2 and Sea Shepherd members on board the Bob Barker and posted on YouTube. A wake and "prop wash" can clearly be seen behind the Ady Gil, as it accellerates into the Shonan Maru No. 2[135] Very one sided, the video also shows the Shounen maru #2 making a hard to starboard to deliberately close distance (which is illegal as they were not in the right of way) to the Ady. I think it should be mentioned in it as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.152.215 ( talk) 22:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Japan is an Island on which whales can not live in significant quantity Japanese whaling is not done in Japan, shouldn't it be referred to as Whaling By Japan or Japanese Whaling? Just Curious Scottprovost ( talk) 03:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Japan is being taken to International Court of Justice. Is there a reference to this? Isn't this a major part of the story? ( 203.45.194.193 ( talk) 09:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC))
A crazed homeless guy taking the President to court over alien implants is no more notable than that. Japan isn't doing anything illegal, as everyone with even the most basic knowledge of international laws understands. 124.150.47.60 ( talk) 14:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane
This particular group seems to be mentioned over and over again in this article while names of other groups are glossed over. It almost comes across as a clever advert for this organization. I do not know enough about the subject to apply a tag to the article but the name is written and linked in almost every section.( Drn8 ( talk) 06:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC))
STSC removed a quote saying "maintaining NPOV - not to quote directly from the disputants". However the statement is attributed to Hideki Moronuki per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and properly quoted per WP:QUOTE. If there is a rational reason to remove the quote, pleae explain it. ―― Phoenix7777 ( talk) 09:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
{Outdent} You re-read above discussion carefully before you insist a ridiculous claim. If you wish to change the description, please provide a persuasive discussion. Otherwise, no one will care your post here anymore.―― Phoenix7777 ( talk) 11:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
'Hideki Moronuki, the whaling chief at Japan's Fisheries Agency, denied the allegation saying, "There is no truth to it." He further stated that "Sikua may have confused the London meet with a seminar last week in Tokyo to which Japan invited delegates from 12 developing nations that have recently joined or are considering joining the IWC. Japan sometimes holds small seminars on whaling and invites delegates from countries. I wonder if Mr Sikua mixed up such seminars and IWC meetings,"
I removed some content that was sourced from an article by Andrew Darby. I’m familiar with this author. He puts out a high volume of newspaper articles and columns on the topic of whaling, and is decidedly biased in favour of Sea Shepherd and against whaling. — TheHerbalGerbil( TALK| STALK), 14:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:JB50000/reference list. Someone who edits this article should volunteer at that MfD to have the now-orphaned list of references on this topic userspaced to their own username so it's not just deleted before the useful stuff in it can be used to improve this article. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 20:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Original caption:
Minke Whales, including a 1-year-old calf, being loaded aboard a Japanese factory ship, the Nisshin Maru. This photograph was taken in the Southern Ocean by agents from the Oceanic Viking, an Australian Customs and Border Protection Service vessel, during a 2008 surveillance mission. [1] The sign above the slipway reads, "Legal research under the ICRW".
With the comment, "resized an image ...[and] Removed an excessive caption per WP:CAPTION", the pic was reduced to default size (250px), and the caption was reduced to:
Minke Whales being loaded aboard a Japanese factory ship, the Nisshin Maru.
In retrospect, I completely agree (and apologize) that 500px was way too big for the picture, and also agree that the caption was too lengthy and needed a good trim. However, I believe the above edit has swung the pendulum too far in the opposite direction, under the guise of "succinctness". The photo tells a much more complex and engaging story than "whales being loaded on a ship", but without a meaningful caption, and at 250px, the reader will never know that. Perhaps that was the intent of the edit...?
Since WP:CAPTION was cited, please note the following excerpts (emphasis added):
Now, having said that, I've offered the following caption in compromise:
A whale and calf being loaded aboard a factory ship, the Nisshin Maru. The sign above the slipway reads, "Legal research under the ICRW". Australia released this photo to challenge that claim.
With that, I hope to present a more neutral POV than my original caption, while remaining succinct, informative and engaging. The text of the sign is notable but definitely not obvious, plus it's relevant to the text, as it presents the crux of Japan's justification for whaling in the Southern Ocean. The calf is certainly notable but not obvious, and it relates to Australia's opposition, which is itself notable and relevant to establish the conflict; the section link may help to draw the reader into the article. Finally, there is an enormous amount of white space at the top right of the article, due to the length of the TOC. By increasing the image width to 350px, the caption stays at 3 lines of text, and the image becomes more informative and aesthetically balanced. Grolltech ( talk) 22:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
The Japanese claim their whaling activities are legitimate because they undertake it for the purpose of research. Given the scale of their operations, involving the slaughter of 4500 whales, we would expect a cornucopia of research findings. Is it true that this massive research undertaking has resulted in nothing really, apart from noting that the whales lost 9% of their blubber over the period the Japanese were hunting them down? -- Epipelagic ( talk) 07:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
The ICR mercury page lists the mercury content of the tissues, but the google translation that I use doesn't provide any units. I'm dubious of the source in the article, because rorqual's are fairly low on the food chain and shouldn't be bioaccumulating too much, but without units I can't tell what the ICR (who definitely have the samples) agree or disagree. -- Opcnup ( talk) 08:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Isn't Japan's defense of it's whaling as "cultural" contradictory to it's arguments that the whaling is research? ( Undeadplatypus ( talk) 02:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC))
The majority of the article is about whaling by Japan (or Japanese organisations), not whaling in Japan, the title is a bit misleading. Views on moving and/or splitting? (I think this is a purely editorial issue and should not be controversial with respect to your view on whaling itself, but I could well be wrong.) -- PalaceGuard008 ( Talk) 09:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
"Whaling in Japan" seems fine to me, though the article could possibly be called the "Whaling industry in Japan". The article includes issues such as political and cultural attitudes towards whaling within Japan, international reactions to Japanese behaviour and the Japanese whale market, and covers much more than just "whaling by Japanese vessels". A name change here would have repercussions elsewhere, as there is a series of other article titled "Whaling in <Country>". "Whaling in Japan" is about the whaling industry in Japan, and could be viewed as a subarticle to Fishing industry in Japan. There is also a series of other articles titled "Fishing industry in <Country>", and a name change to the whaling articles could have repercussions there. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 01:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I think it should be moved to "Japanese whaling". Above STSC says '"Japanese whaling" seems to me it's about the ways the Japanese hunt the whales?'. YES! This is about the ways and whys and hows of the Japanese people hunting whales. It is about the role of whaling in the culture, how it became tradition, and the transition to modernised whaling practises and the conflict with international whale protection measures. fwiw, even with the recent International Court of Justice decision, I dont like using 'whaling industry' in the title of this article or others, as it prejudices the reader to thinking the whaling is done for industry/commercial/financial reasons only, rather than having deep cultural roots. John Vandenberg ( chat) 02:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Two sections in this article suggest that whale meat has been removed from school lunch programs, while one section suggests that it is served in schools. It was used a lot in school lunches after WWII, then dwindled substantially from the 1960s through 2005, when the government promoted its reintroduction to public schools as sharp increases in whaling led to a glut of meat that exceeded market demand. There are numerous articles about this, for example:
Whale Meat Back on School Lunch Menus Japan Times, 2010-Sep-05. "Of about 29,600 public elementary and junior high schools nationwide offering lunches for students, 5,355 schools, or 18 percent, responded they had served whale meat in their lunches at least once in fiscal 2009 through March 2010...."
Japan Subsidy for Whaling Is Challenged NY Times, 2013-Feb-06. "...announce a plan last year to cut costs by reducing the annual catch and to sell more whale meat directly to schools for lunches."
In the section World War II, the Wikipedia article currently says "Other meats became more popular into the 1970s and whale meat was removed from school menus.[37]", citing the book "Whaling in Japan: Power, Politics, and Diplomacy." That book also correctly points out the 2005 act that reinstated whale meat's widespread inclusion in public school lunches: "In order to popularize the consumption of whale meat, the ICR is providing whale meat to schools at a discount in consideration of the limited food budgets of public schools." I'd suggest extending the sentence with ", until its widespread reintroduction in 2005." I also don't think it was ever completely removed from all Japanese school lunch menus, but I'm not able to locate a source for that.
In the section "Cultural Aspects, the Wikipedia article currently says "A professor of environmental studies in Japan wrote in his book that Japan's modern commercial whaling bears little resemblance to the small-scale subsistence whaling that, until the dawn of the 20th century, was limited to certain coastal regions, and Japan's whale-eating culture was also very limited in scope and an invented tradition, only lasting 20 years from the end of World War II to the early 1960s to augment Japanese school lunch programs during the U.S. occupation." The intent is a little unclear, but that seems to suggest that there isn't a whale-eating culture any more, whereas people clearly are still eating whale meat. If the suggestion is that 1945-1960s was period upon which the "cultural tradition" is based, and that whale eating after that is not part of that same tradition, that's arbitrary, with no objective, factual basis. While the claim is prefaced with essentially "one guy said this," it's paraphrased, lacks context, and doesn't seem like it meets the standards for inclusion in Wikipedia.
71.238.69.41 ( talk) 01:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
![]() | This page 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. |
Average consumption per day a person in Japan. [ [1]] The consumption is 4646 tons a year in Japan.-- 218.112.38.38 ( talk) 18:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I know that this question is very late, but maybe someone "in the know" will spot it and respond. Can anyone tell me why it is that the farming of cattle, sheep, pigs is quite OK. That is, the deliberate insemination and rearing of offspring, with the sole intention of killing them for food. But the "harvesting" of what are otherwise wild animals is so frowned upon? 212.139.244.103 ( talk) 08:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
The use of the phrase "where the commercial slaughter of dolphins continues to this day" is very biased. not only is the mention of dolphins off topic, both within the paragrahp and the article as a whole, the use of the word "slaughter" clearly projects a particular moral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.198.110.161 ( talk) 10:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Slaughter sounds mean. People should use nice phrases like "commercial catching of dolphins where the dolphins end up dead" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.219.62 ( talk) 23:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/bsefaq.html
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/disemala/avflu/surv/rpt2_3e.shtml
( talk) 02:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Although slaughter is not necessarily a morally biased word, it is more appropriate to refer to killing a whale as "taking" a whale for the purposes of maintaining neutrality. Cetamata ( talk) 05:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Hans, if you're joining this discussion with the mindset that killing whales is on par with mafia crime, child pornography and torture, you're going to have a hard time. Please check your bias at the door. I have no problem with the word "slaughter". It just doesn't apply here. My feeling for it matches the slaughter article which states that "Commonly it refers to killing and butchering of domestic livestock." Similarly, harvest hardly fits with killing animals. Catch, kill, and take are, I think, all used appropriately in the article. "Catch" is the most general term, "kill" refers to the actual killing, and "take" to the taking. I can see how this is a sticking point for evangelicals. For the anti-whaling side the main issue about the catch is the kill (for being an immoral act) but to the pro side whalers hunt to take something home, not to extinguish life for it's own sake. To conclude (this section, hopefully): "Slaughter" is not appropriate for the killing of whales (as opposed to dolphin drive hunting where dolphins are rounded up and slaughtered). -- Swift ( talk) 10:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree that "take" and "catch" are are industry euphemisms and thus shouldn't be here unqualified. (If someone wanted to include them in a sort of explanatory note or callout on industry terminology, that might work). They've creeped into the article so I'm going back through now to change it. However, I recognize that the terms "kill" and "killed" (and even "slaughter") are insufficient, as well -- they don't include the meat harvesting/processing components of whaling. PrBeacon ( talk) 22:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) The problem with this article using unqualified terms like "take" and "catch" (and even "harvest," arguably) is that these words falsely imply that the whales are not killed -- disregarding the rare to nonexistent 'non-lethal research.'
In contrast to the Japanese whaling, there is the legitimate research of wild animals which are caught, tagged and released for further study. This association is exactly why the terms "take" and "catch" are effective euphemisms by the whaling industry. Furthermore, our audience is not necessarily readers familiar with the common use of these terms. No one here is arguing for "slaughter," by the way, so that point is moot.
PrBeacon (
talk) 07:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
it's not neutral. as stated before, they commonly, actually constantly, use slaughter about pig and cows. "slaughter house". this is the sam thing. hundreds of animals being killed mostly for food. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.115.204.217 (
talk) 13:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Within reason, let's stick to terminology that supports encyclopedic accuracy, and in the case of the controlled killing of a mammal, slaughter is and will be the proper term regardless of the pressure of vandals or other individuals with an emotional or ideological interest in sugar-coating the whaling activities of any country. The word slaughter can not be considered biased unless you mean biased in the favor of the English dictionary, which hopefully we are all familiar with. -- APDEF ( talk) 23:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I just did a big edit on this page, largely weeding out weasels and uncited statements that I couldn't find any support for. I figured I'd leave a comment here in addition to my edit summaries since this is a contested topic.
I removed the toxin section as it was pretty much duplicating content on Whaling. Not on the Japanese side, though, so I added a short sentence on that. Please see that page for more and contribute if you have more to offer on that subject.
I removed some content as I thought it wouldn't contribute much after it was stripped of sub-standard portions. I tried replacing it with fairly solid citable material. The Controversy section now only mentions a couple (I think the most important) issues raised by Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd, respectively. I didn't put anything on individual governments' statements but mentioned that some did object. No citations for that, but I don't think it's something that anyone would object to.
The history section shares a lot of content with the History of whaling#The Japanese Fishery which desperately needs a rewrite anyway.
The Recent events section needs wikification and copy editing as already noted.
I'm contemplating removing the Catch statistics completely in favour of a link to those numbers. -- Swift ( talk) 08:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
shouldn't we be a bit more clear that Sea Shepherd was the one that threw the butyric acid than be ambiguous? 165.21.155.74 ( talk) 12:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Someone had removed a previously referenced comment on the IWC position on JARPA in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. The removal of this portion of text would seem to be politically based vandalisim, and removal of this portion of text again will be challenged on that basis. The IWC position on whaling in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary is highly relevant, and is a neutral position. Just stating what the IWC position is not biased. Please don't vandalize this article. John Moss ( talk) 22:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn`t some mention be made of the two Japanese men working for Greenpeace Japan who face ten year prison sentences? ( see today's Guardian)
The image File:Steve Irwin Collision With Yushin Maru No3 6 Feb 2009.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I object to this revert. [4] The problem is that while the quotation is literal, it is not a literal quotation from the speakers to which we ascribe it but from a Times journalist. In other words: We are lying. The quotation marks must go, and this makes it necessary to reduce the literal quotation. The fact that commercial whaling is banned is important, and I have just rewritten the lead (which had the same problem) to give it a bit more weight. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 23:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion the whaling in Japan page is in dire need of restructuring. There seems to be a great deal of overlap between disputes, controversy and IWC debate. Also, the page does not touch upon the controversy of Japan's whaling prior to the moratorium and there was indeed a great deal of public debate
I believe "Whaling in Japan" should be structured in a new format that addresses historical accuracy more than justification of support/objections...
1) Introduction/Summary
2) Origin/Aboriginal history (whales taken/methods used/time period/use of whale product)
3) Pre-Moratorium Commercial whaling history (whales taken/methods used/international influence on industry/use of whale product)
4) Research whaling/Modern whaling history (whales taken/methods used/reasoning behind research/use of whale products)
5) Coastal Bycatch whaling (whales taken/laws supporting/methods used/use of whale product)
6) Black market whale product
7) Dolphin drives/small cetacean hunting (whales taken/methods used/international influence on industry/use of whale product)
8) IWC Regarding Japan (major decisions - quotas/protected species/small cetaceans/moratorium/science committee/important votes etc)
9) Regulations that apply to Japan pre-moratorium/current (or would apply but for objections)
10) Affect of International Observers
11) Japan economic influence in the IWC
12) Threats to leave IWC
13) Japan IWC representatives
14) International Government objections/support/Japan rebuttal
15) Scientific objections/support/Japan rebuttal
16) NGO/Environmentalist objections/Japan rebuttal
17) Japanese public objections/support/awareness
18) Research performed (published work/results/challenges)
19) Japan ICR in brief (including private companies involved in whaling through ICR)
20) Legal Challenges (Australia in particular has deemed the Antarctic whaling operation illegal for example)/Japan rebuttal
21) Significant non-violent protest (Save the Whales/Save the Whales Again)/Japan rebuttal
22) Significant direct action (Sea Shepherd/Greenpeace) intervention incidents/Japan rebuttal
23) Recent Media attention (Mother-calf photos, Whale Wars, The Cove)/Japan rebuttal
24) Propaganda (whales eat fish and destroy fisheries/eco-terrorism/whale abundance)
25) Trade relations affect on pro/anti-whaling politics
26) Japan government subsidies for whaling industry
27) Food safety concerns (product labeling/Minamata disease)
28) Importation of whale product from Norway/Iceland
29) Recent IMO regulations regarding ship/industrial restrictions that could affect whaling ships
30) Exploitation of other resources relating to whaling (such as krill/forage fish harvesting for aquaculture)
Cetamata (
talk) 20:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Removed a couple of things. Also wanted to mention that most of the list can be removed: "Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a 'See also' section" per WP:SEEALSO. Cptnono ( talk) 09:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The context of the the Ainu in describing aboriginal Japanese whaling is important. Japanese representatives claim there is a tradition of whaling that goes back to the Jomon period as if the same tradition has evolved into modern Japanese culture and modern whaling. However critics argue that the government in Japan does not respect other traditional cultural fishing rights in modern days for a variety of reasons. Nor was the aboriginal cultural status of the Ainu even recognized officially in Japan until 2008. Mentioning this in the history of Japanese whaling maintains a proper context instead of simply making a case for whaling. By stating the historical fact and providing this context the article retains its neutrality. Cetamata ( talk) 18:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Very well. However, I trust you will not remove the same information when it is posted in the controversy section. I'd also appreciate it if you'd address such issues in the controversy section rather than deleting it completely from the article as it is indeed relevant to arguments Japanese representatives have made for rights to coastal whaling and against U.S. native subsistence whaling. Cetamata ( talk) 05:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I have concerns with Cetamata's edits and have adjusted a couple of them. Basic layout, formatting, and citation guidelines are not being followed. Also, it looks like some of the info added have WP:RECENTISM, WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, and WP:SOAPBOX. I have asked the user to make requests here until they are caught up with the standards. Cptnono ( talk) 04:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
;-)
I took out the paragraph on Commodore Perry's opening up of Japan. An earlier version mentioned that one of the reasons for opening up Japan was to secure whaling grounds. The paragraph I removed didn't seem to have much relevance to whaling in Japan so I cut it. We should look for a good resource on that episode in the history of whaling in Japan. This document might be a good start. -- Swift ( talk) 01:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Some of the data in this article is entirely unsupported by robust references. If these are not modified by the end of the week, I will start removing the references, and therefore the information based upon the reference will be re-written as unsupported. One perfect example of a flawed, and biased, reference is http://www.whaling.jp/english/history.html 8: a b "History of Whaling". Japan Whaling Association. http://www.whaling.jp/english/history.html. Retrieved 2009-12-19. "12th Century Hand-harpoon whaling starts in Japan" The reason the source is unreliable is because the source (the Japan Whale Assoc.) has a vested interest in promoting whaling as an ancient practice of cultural significance thus adding weight to the contentious issue of whaling for Japan, therefore providing the same association with further funding. Rather than sourcing from a company which is directly involved in whaling, this information will only be acceptable if sourced from an independent researcher non funded by the whaling industry. The article its self does not actually have any solid references or information about how the data was revealed. If an alternative is not provided, and I am unable to find a satisfactory one, this is the first part of the article I will re-write. Shuggyg ( talk) 14:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
there should be a section stating somthing about how no new scientific infomation comes out of japan about whales. i have researched there webste, and there news section states no new discoverys or information about whales, there diets or anything. rather, its full of biased statements about the "aggression" and "violence" of non-violent anti-whaling groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 ( talk) 23:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Cetamata recently restored sections on the JARPA programs to this article with the note that they had been WP:REMOVEd without discussion. As clarified in the edit summary, these were note removed, simply moved to Institute of Cetacean Research. The research is conducted by the ICR and thus more appropriate there. A link to guide people to that article was prominently placed at the top of the relevant section. -- Swift ( talk) 12:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) The point is, they shouldn't be in both articles, nor as stubs/articles on their own. The "research" doesn't qualify as scientific because it's not peer-reviewed, and thus should not be given undue weight here. PrBeacon ( talk) 00:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Look, whaling is a contentious issue. Anyone reading or editing this page knows that.
However, when you add in statements like "There was considerable opposition for the publication of this paper from scientists based in anti whaling countries. Mark Simmonds, director of science at the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, argued that the paper should have been rejected on ethical grounds." you create a sense of bias.
The issue is a study based on Japanese research that was rejected by several publications (stated in the current article text). If we include every statement against these studies ever made by every conservation group/person we won't have a coherent history section on Japanese whaling.
Without that text we have a clear establishment that the study was published in a peer reviewed journal. That it was first rejected. One scientist who supports it and one scientist who does not support it. That is a suitably neutral presentation. Cetamata ( talk) 03:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I've created a new section for information on published results of whaling research. Anything about published/reviewed papers based on the JARPA and JARPN programs should go there. Cetamata ( talk) 03:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The current edit imply that objection was entirely scientific. However, a newspaper categorically assert the fact that there were oppositions to publication from scientist in anti whaling countries and that there is a quote from such scientist who specifically state that objection was on ethical and not scientific ground. Therefore, deletion of this critical information is not warranted. Vapour ( talk) 14:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Edited text - "There was considerable opposition for the publication of this paper from scientists based in anti whaling countries. Mark Simmonds, director of science at the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, argued that the paper should have been rejected on ethical ground."
It's water weight you bastard. No just kidding. It is readable prose per a dyk check and is under the limit length wise. Certain aspects might have too much weight and it could be broken into too many subsections (not sure) but the size itself is not a problem. Cptnono ( talk) 06:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) No, I think you misread Swift's comments as pro-whaling, or against you for being anti-whaling. He moved the JARPA info to ICR, you copied them back and left them there, as well. If you want to continue this JARPA-thread specifically, I suggest you respond in that secton, above. PrBeacon ( talk) 00:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Please stop changing every "research" title to "claims of research". Remember this article is flagged for neutrality issues. By implying the research is invalid in the title you are inserting bias into the article.
Please cite information on objections to the research in a specific way through statements and evaluations made by authoritative sources in the appropriate way. Cetamata ( talk) 21:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
How does the term "Claims of research" imply that the research is invalid? At best it includes the weight of scientific reason, at worst it casts doubt on it -- which is what the dispute does. There are enough notable sources criticizing Japan/ICR's claims. PrBeacon ( talk) 22:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I've shown many examples where the term "Research Whaling" is used by anti-whaling groups, Japanese whaling organizations, news organizations, and government entities. I believe this is the neutral term in common usage to refer to Japan's whaling programs and it should not be replaced with "Claims of Research".
This is not because of any desire to promote or legitimize Japan's whaling. I believe referring to the whaling as if it is a sham (ie: just a "claim of research" rather than "research of disputed value") negatively affects the neutrality of the article in favor of anti-whaling POV. Cetamata ( talk) 19:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
What about this? Cetamata ( talk) 19:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
As a disclaimer, I am new to discussions here. If I have done (or do) anything offensive by my wording or method of posting my observation, it is certainly unintentional and I would welcome advice so that I may implement appropriate changes.
In the World War II section, when discussing Japan post-surrender, it was stated that General Douglas MacArthur encouraged "Japan to continue whaling in order to provide a cheap source of meat to starving people (and millions of dollars in oil for the USA and Europe)." I do not dispute the claim made. However, I think it appropriate to discuss the source material referenced to support the claim.
If you wish to peruse the source before focusing your no-doubt enraptured attention on the rest of my discussion, I have provided it at the bottom of my post.
I found that the source material appears to be an opinion piece posted on an Australian news site. Insofar as the source article has no source material or peer-review to bolster its own claims, I object that it is improper to engage in what is essentially the transitioning of opinion from an opinion post to an encyclopedia. My recommendation is that more substantial source material should be provided to uphold the statement of US profit, or else the statement should be removed until such time as a source may be provided.
Further, I recommend that an additional source be provided which upholds the historical accuracy of the events surrounding MacArthur's authorization of Japanese whaling. Perhaps a news article from the period, or even a book discussing the events in post-war Japan which references such an article. To be clear, I am after something concrete, or at least some text tied to a documentation, or statement of events from the time period in which we are claiming the events happened. I contend that a referenced or researched piece will more broadly support historical accuracy of the section as a whole.
If I have made the mistake of not providing potential sources to replace the source which I deem defunct, please forgive me, as I am but a babe in the discussion community. Le tme know, and I will do what I can to find something relevant.
Here is the link to the source used: http://www.theage.com.au/news/climate-watch/blame-general-macarthur-for-whaling-row/2007/12/18/1197740272644.html
Bluegrassgemini ( talk) 16:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I find this paragraph: On January 6, 2010, the anti-whaling ship Ady Gil suffered severe damage to its bow after a collision with the Japanese whaling ship Shōnan Maru No. 2, and was abandoned, leaking oil by the Sea Shepherds.[134] Video footage of the incident was taken by both a crew member of the Shonan Maru No. 2 and Sea Shepherd members on board the Bob Barker and posted on YouTube. A wake and "prop wash" can clearly be seen behind the Ady Gil, as it accellerates into the Shonan Maru No. 2[135] Very one sided, the video also shows the Shounen maru #2 making a hard to starboard to deliberately close distance (which is illegal as they were not in the right of way) to the Ady. I think it should be mentioned in it as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.152.215 ( talk) 22:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Japan is an Island on which whales can not live in significant quantity Japanese whaling is not done in Japan, shouldn't it be referred to as Whaling By Japan or Japanese Whaling? Just Curious Scottprovost ( talk) 03:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Japan is being taken to International Court of Justice. Is there a reference to this? Isn't this a major part of the story? ( 203.45.194.193 ( talk) 09:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC))
A crazed homeless guy taking the President to court over alien implants is no more notable than that. Japan isn't doing anything illegal, as everyone with even the most basic knowledge of international laws understands. 124.150.47.60 ( talk) 14:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane
This particular group seems to be mentioned over and over again in this article while names of other groups are glossed over. It almost comes across as a clever advert for this organization. I do not know enough about the subject to apply a tag to the article but the name is written and linked in almost every section.( Drn8 ( talk) 06:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC))
STSC removed a quote saying "maintaining NPOV - not to quote directly from the disputants". However the statement is attributed to Hideki Moronuki per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and properly quoted per WP:QUOTE. If there is a rational reason to remove the quote, pleae explain it. ―― Phoenix7777 ( talk) 09:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
{Outdent} You re-read above discussion carefully before you insist a ridiculous claim. If you wish to change the description, please provide a persuasive discussion. Otherwise, no one will care your post here anymore.―― Phoenix7777 ( talk) 11:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
'Hideki Moronuki, the whaling chief at Japan's Fisheries Agency, denied the allegation saying, "There is no truth to it." He further stated that "Sikua may have confused the London meet with a seminar last week in Tokyo to which Japan invited delegates from 12 developing nations that have recently joined or are considering joining the IWC. Japan sometimes holds small seminars on whaling and invites delegates from countries. I wonder if Mr Sikua mixed up such seminars and IWC meetings,"
I removed some content that was sourced from an article by Andrew Darby. I’m familiar with this author. He puts out a high volume of newspaper articles and columns on the topic of whaling, and is decidedly biased in favour of Sea Shepherd and against whaling. — TheHerbalGerbil( TALK| STALK), 14:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:JB50000/reference list. Someone who edits this article should volunteer at that MfD to have the now-orphaned list of references on this topic userspaced to their own username so it's not just deleted before the useful stuff in it can be used to improve this article. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 20:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Original caption:
Minke Whales, including a 1-year-old calf, being loaded aboard a Japanese factory ship, the Nisshin Maru. This photograph was taken in the Southern Ocean by agents from the Oceanic Viking, an Australian Customs and Border Protection Service vessel, during a 2008 surveillance mission. [1] The sign above the slipway reads, "Legal research under the ICRW".
With the comment, "resized an image ...[and] Removed an excessive caption per WP:CAPTION", the pic was reduced to default size (250px), and the caption was reduced to:
Minke Whales being loaded aboard a Japanese factory ship, the Nisshin Maru.
In retrospect, I completely agree (and apologize) that 500px was way too big for the picture, and also agree that the caption was too lengthy and needed a good trim. However, I believe the above edit has swung the pendulum too far in the opposite direction, under the guise of "succinctness". The photo tells a much more complex and engaging story than "whales being loaded on a ship", but without a meaningful caption, and at 250px, the reader will never know that. Perhaps that was the intent of the edit...?
Since WP:CAPTION was cited, please note the following excerpts (emphasis added):
Now, having said that, I've offered the following caption in compromise:
A whale and calf being loaded aboard a factory ship, the Nisshin Maru. The sign above the slipway reads, "Legal research under the ICRW". Australia released this photo to challenge that claim.
With that, I hope to present a more neutral POV than my original caption, while remaining succinct, informative and engaging. The text of the sign is notable but definitely not obvious, plus it's relevant to the text, as it presents the crux of Japan's justification for whaling in the Southern Ocean. The calf is certainly notable but not obvious, and it relates to Australia's opposition, which is itself notable and relevant to establish the conflict; the section link may help to draw the reader into the article. Finally, there is an enormous amount of white space at the top right of the article, due to the length of the TOC. By increasing the image width to 350px, the caption stays at 3 lines of text, and the image becomes more informative and aesthetically balanced. Grolltech ( talk) 22:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
The Japanese claim their whaling activities are legitimate because they undertake it for the purpose of research. Given the scale of their operations, involving the slaughter of 4500 whales, we would expect a cornucopia of research findings. Is it true that this massive research undertaking has resulted in nothing really, apart from noting that the whales lost 9% of their blubber over the period the Japanese were hunting them down? -- Epipelagic ( talk) 07:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
The ICR mercury page lists the mercury content of the tissues, but the google translation that I use doesn't provide any units. I'm dubious of the source in the article, because rorqual's are fairly low on the food chain and shouldn't be bioaccumulating too much, but without units I can't tell what the ICR (who definitely have the samples) agree or disagree. -- Opcnup ( talk) 08:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Isn't Japan's defense of it's whaling as "cultural" contradictory to it's arguments that the whaling is research? ( Undeadplatypus ( talk) 02:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC))
The majority of the article is about whaling by Japan (or Japanese organisations), not whaling in Japan, the title is a bit misleading. Views on moving and/or splitting? (I think this is a purely editorial issue and should not be controversial with respect to your view on whaling itself, but I could well be wrong.) -- PalaceGuard008 ( Talk) 09:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
"Whaling in Japan" seems fine to me, though the article could possibly be called the "Whaling industry in Japan". The article includes issues such as political and cultural attitudes towards whaling within Japan, international reactions to Japanese behaviour and the Japanese whale market, and covers much more than just "whaling by Japanese vessels". A name change here would have repercussions elsewhere, as there is a series of other article titled "Whaling in <Country>". "Whaling in Japan" is about the whaling industry in Japan, and could be viewed as a subarticle to Fishing industry in Japan. There is also a series of other articles titled "Fishing industry in <Country>", and a name change to the whaling articles could have repercussions there. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 01:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I think it should be moved to "Japanese whaling". Above STSC says '"Japanese whaling" seems to me it's about the ways the Japanese hunt the whales?'. YES! This is about the ways and whys and hows of the Japanese people hunting whales. It is about the role of whaling in the culture, how it became tradition, and the transition to modernised whaling practises and the conflict with international whale protection measures. fwiw, even with the recent International Court of Justice decision, I dont like using 'whaling industry' in the title of this article or others, as it prejudices the reader to thinking the whaling is done for industry/commercial/financial reasons only, rather than having deep cultural roots. John Vandenberg ( chat) 02:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Two sections in this article suggest that whale meat has been removed from school lunch programs, while one section suggests that it is served in schools. It was used a lot in school lunches after WWII, then dwindled substantially from the 1960s through 2005, when the government promoted its reintroduction to public schools as sharp increases in whaling led to a glut of meat that exceeded market demand. There are numerous articles about this, for example:
Whale Meat Back on School Lunch Menus Japan Times, 2010-Sep-05. "Of about 29,600 public elementary and junior high schools nationwide offering lunches for students, 5,355 schools, or 18 percent, responded they had served whale meat in their lunches at least once in fiscal 2009 through March 2010...."
Japan Subsidy for Whaling Is Challenged NY Times, 2013-Feb-06. "...announce a plan last year to cut costs by reducing the annual catch and to sell more whale meat directly to schools for lunches."
In the section World War II, the Wikipedia article currently says "Other meats became more popular into the 1970s and whale meat was removed from school menus.[37]", citing the book "Whaling in Japan: Power, Politics, and Diplomacy." That book also correctly points out the 2005 act that reinstated whale meat's widespread inclusion in public school lunches: "In order to popularize the consumption of whale meat, the ICR is providing whale meat to schools at a discount in consideration of the limited food budgets of public schools." I'd suggest extending the sentence with ", until its widespread reintroduction in 2005." I also don't think it was ever completely removed from all Japanese school lunch menus, but I'm not able to locate a source for that.
In the section "Cultural Aspects, the Wikipedia article currently says "A professor of environmental studies in Japan wrote in his book that Japan's modern commercial whaling bears little resemblance to the small-scale subsistence whaling that, until the dawn of the 20th century, was limited to certain coastal regions, and Japan's whale-eating culture was also very limited in scope and an invented tradition, only lasting 20 years from the end of World War II to the early 1960s to augment Japanese school lunch programs during the U.S. occupation." The intent is a little unclear, but that seems to suggest that there isn't a whale-eating culture any more, whereas people clearly are still eating whale meat. If the suggestion is that 1945-1960s was period upon which the "cultural tradition" is based, and that whale eating after that is not part of that same tradition, that's arbitrary, with no objective, factual basis. While the claim is prefaced with essentially "one guy said this," it's paraphrased, lacks context, and doesn't seem like it meets the standards for inclusion in Wikipedia.
71.238.69.41 ( talk) 01:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |