Talk:Whaling

Article Lacks Basic Information

There are very long sections on the history of whaling in different countries, and on modern whaling. However, the most basic information is not presented at the beginning of the article in a manner that is clear and easy to find. The following questions need to be answered in the lead, and preferably before long sections on history in different countries: Why were wales hunted? What products did whales provide? and How were whales hunted? This article certainly does not meet the criteria for B-class status with these existing problems. Once this information is added to the lead or at least somewhere before the very long history section, the article then would certainly qualify as B-class. Dgf32 (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection

This page is being hit with allot of vandalism, suggest semi-protection.Hreinn (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That is a great idea! --Swift (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

requested --Swift (talk) 06:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Scottish whaling

There seems to be no mention of the Scottish whaling fleet. I hope that the word 'English' is not being used incorrectly to refer to 'British'?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.147.172 (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

'Kayla' whale?

There are several mentions in this article of a 'Kayla' whale. But exactly what one is is never explained. There is no entry in Wikipedia for a 'Kayla' whale. I would appreciate if someone who knows about the term could add some brief explanatory information--perhaps in the first paragraph under 'History of Whaling' where it says: "Although prehistoric hunting and gathering is generally considered to have had low ecological impact, human activity related to early whaling communities in the Arctic may have altered freshwater ecology for the Kayla whales." Thanks. Dappawit (talk) 02:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly vandalism, no one has reverted it but i dont know where it was inserted so i dont know what to replace it with.

67.84.178.0 (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Section: Ship collision, bycatch and illegal trade - incorrect statement

The Following quote appears to be inaccurate. It does not directly link organization that the quote is supposed to come from but rather another article on BBC page which appears to have it wrong

This is the quote

"WWF says that 90% of all whales being killed are from ship collision followed by-catch and then hunting"

This seems to have been taken out of context from the actual statement by the WWF

"In fact, ship strikes are to blame for 90 percent of Northern right whale deaths for which the cause is known (excluding deaths from natural factors such as old age). However, they are only one of the whale species directly threatened by shipping."

This is taken from the following link

http://www.panda.org/what_we_do/endangered_species/cetaceans/threats/shipping/

I have e-mailed WWF to confirm, but further checks on the NOAA seem to confirm that the 90% figure is only in relation to Northern Right Whales with and extremely low populaton count —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken wilsonii (talk • contribs) 23:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Whale intelligence

I fear the current article is a bit biased against whaling in that section. Baleen whales are stupid, about like cows or any other grazer. *Toothed* whales are somewhat intelligent, though it's only dolphins that are beyond the range of other animals used as food.

It's true that anti-whaling groups claim this, but it should be clearer that baleen whales are --not-- intelligent compared to other food animals.Vultur (talk) 04:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

except for that fact that they are. saying there as stupid as cows is prowhaling bias. its be reported many times by non whaling related groups about there intelligence. like one story of a whale saving seals from an toothed whale. and there dieat isnt important. heirbivore or meat eater, either way there brains are much larger than ours, even icomparrison to body size. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 23:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe you meant to use "they're" and the possessive "their", not "there". Also, please cite sources for such (perhaps dubious) claims. Mysticetes and the sperm whale do indeed have larger brains, but their brain-to-body weight ratio is actually much smaller than ours. And baleen whales aren't particularly bright. I don't find blowing bubbles (e.g. humpbacks and bryde's) as a sign of great intelligence. OldBabyBlue (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

No, animals are not 'stupid' - that is a human trait. These animals can do things with sonar that are absolutely amazing, and have minds like no other on this planet. They are beautifully adapted carnivores, and even baleen whales have shown curiosity and a range of emotions.50.111.3.227 (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

What you think, indefinitely blocked sockpuppet of USER:Jonas Poole, doesn't matter - only what the Reliable Sources state.50.111.3.227 (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Still Poorly Written

This article is still a poor excuse for an encyclopedic entry on whaling. Whaling methods aren't even described in this article until the lengthy discussion on arguments for or against. The methods should be among the first things; that would be more in line with describing what whaling is before opening the attendant can of worms. Articles like this one give Wikipedia the lackluster reputation it currently has. The arrangement of the article itself is very conservation-biased, beginning in the introduction by stating that modern whaling began with the creation of the IWC. IMO, this itself is a POV that should be sourced (e.g., "it is commonly agreed that modern whaling began with the formation of the IWC" [source]).68.106.206.153 (talk) 05:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Pros section

The pros and cons sections seems lacking in the pros side of the argument. Besides economic pros, I'm sure there are more arguments for whaling non-endangered species, right? I know a lot of people killing whales/dolphins is not much different from killing cows. Where is this point of view? --121.80.175.129 (talk) 10:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Taste of whale meat

I've just reverted for the second time a mention that whale meat tastes like chicken. The second time this was added, it was accompanied by a link to a yahoo answers question. There are two main problems with the source. First off, the verifiability is questionable as I'm not aware of any editorial oversight or other means of quality control. Secondly, the source does not reach any conclusion with opinions offered including pork, beef and chicken, and certainly makes no note of the cause being its "nutritional background". --Swift (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

A long time (decades, at least) ago I read that Yankee whalers rarely ate whale meat, even if the alternatives were more hardtack, salt pork, and fish, because of the taste. Apparently, the high concentration of myoglobin to hemoglobin renders whale flesh "too strong" for American tastes. It's possible I still have that book somewhere. If I ever run across it again (I think I know where I saw it), I'll add a citation. Additionally, I seem to recall a reference to the taste of whale milk in one of Jacques Cousteau's books. The high fat content made it unpalatable. Oh, the random things we remember from our youths.... 165.91.64.122 (talk) 06:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)RKH

Moved content off to Whaling controversy

I've just moved the bulk of Whaling#The arguments for and against whaling to Whaling controversy (I modeled the name on Stem cell controversy). This was discussed slightly in #Major rewrite ? in 2008. Since then I've moved a bunch of redundant content off to History of whaling and country specific sections. This left the controversy section taking the bulk of this article. There are a number of articles that have their little bits of whaling controversies and we now finally have a little hub to link these to.

The cut is abrupt and considerable editing is needed. I'll do some of that now and in the coming days and weeks. Any help to copyedit, link and synchronise with others is of course appreciated. --Swift (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Overall, the rewrite seems well done. The introduction reads smoothly enough although it could use a few more citations, especially the final paragraph. And some of the body sections might need flushing out (ie, expansion) including the summaries of controversy, but I wouldnt push for it. PrBeacon (talk) 09:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Not quite sure that this is the right place to address this without creating a new section, but in the last section 'The arguments for and against whaling' where we have;

'Key elements of the debate over whaling include sustainability, ownership, national sovereignty, cetacean intelligence, suffering during hunting, the value of lethal sampling to establish catch quotas, and the value of controlling whales' impact on fish stocks.

I am wondering if this can be even more NPOV by adding a few words, in brackets as suggestions. Its a long sentence and the last part can be read as subtlety POV

'Key elements of the debate over whaling include sustainability; ownership [of stocks and populations of whales]; national sovereignty [vs. International Management and control];, cetacean intelligence, [the amount of] suffering during hunting, the value of lethal sampling to [whale management]; and [whether whale population have a negative impact on fish stock availability for human use]

I have suggested 'amount of' suffering as no hunter would say that all suffering can be avoided, but what is acceptable vs what is not is a point of debate.

Arguments for lethal takes are not just made for quota setting, but for other aspects of whale management

The issue of whether there is an actual impact of whales on fish stocks is in debate, so difficult to imply that this is an accepted impact. Hope thatt makes sense.

Please let me know what you think.Polarbearzombie (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

i object to this edit [1] by Lfstevens. the summary of controversy is way too short. both sides are mentioned in two sentences in the lead, so the body should have much more. the fact that 'Whaling controversy' was split off doesn't mean this section should be eviscerated let alone eliminated. PrBeacon (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay apologies for not seeing the original edit of Lfstevens as noted by PrBeacon. I would have to agree with the PrBeacon that this has been edited too far. I think editing has accidentally potentially introduced elements of POV, and should either be reverted, or a more balanced section should be allowed here.Polarbearzombie (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Content forking

After the creation of the split to Whaling controversy yet another article has been created called Anti-whaling. I see this as a potential content fork and have proposed a merge. Polargeo (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

note, proposal was withdrawn. there was enough interest in keeping the new article. PrBeacon (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Modern Whaling (IWC consideration of quota proposals)

Can someone cite a reference for;

'Since 1992, the IWC's Scientific Committee has requested that it be allowed to give quota proposals for some whale stocks, but this has so far been refused by the Plenary Committee.'

My understanding of the working of the IWC Scientific Committee is that it cannot request anything of the Commission, except to ask what the Commission wishes it to work on. Polarbearzombie (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Further to my note above, the phrase 'The International Whaling Commission (IWC) was set up under the ICRW to decide hunting quotas and other relevant matters based on the findings of its Scientific Committee', could be argued to be not entirely correct.

The ICRW did not establish the Scientific Committee. Indeed the 'Scientific Committee' is not found in the ICRW. From what I can see the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, Article III(4), states ‘The Commission may set up, from among its own members and experts or advisers, such committees as it considers desirable to perform such functions as it may authorize.’

The Schedule does reference the Scientific Committee as adviser to the Commission; but the sovereignty of the Commission, representing elected governments over the non-elected Scientific Committee is a concept the Commission is often forthright in maintaining.Polarbearzombie (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay I think two years is long enough to wait for someone to provide the reference :-)(Polarbearzombie (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC))

I am proposing changing the line 'provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the commercial whaling and the orderly development of the whaling industry' to reflect what the actual text of the Convention says, which is -

'to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry'

There is no mention of commercial whaling in the original Convention text and therefore the way that this line is presented as if its a quote from the Convention is not a true reflection of the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polarbearzombie (talk • contribs) 16:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from Vanstone22, 26 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Remove, "America" Replace, "Japan" in the sentence related to citation 15 under Japan whaling. Should read, "...BBC, (Japan)...." because the structure of the sentence makes it seem as if America was the cause of the problem in the whaling. Either rewrite the sentence structure to, "Since Japan used the controversial front of Scientific research, America broke the agreement..." Vanstone22 (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done:But the BBC article makes it clear that it was the U.S.'s fault. Japan objected to the ban (which would have meant it could continue whaling openly, like Norway and Iceland). The US threatened to stop Japanese fishing for other fish in US waters, so Japan withdrew its objection. Then Green groups and US fisherman in the US used the court system to reduce the quota for Japan in US waters, eventually reducing it to nothing. So, effectively, the US promised it would allow Japan to keep fishing as long as they dropped their whaling objection; Japan dropped the whaling objection, then the US still stopped the Japanese fishing. As a result, Japan decided to start whaling again (albeit under a different name). So I don't see how the sentence as currently written misrepresents the source. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Dipping

The word "dipping" appears in two headlines on the page, but nowhere is it explained what this is or how it relates to whaling. — 98.64.221.153 (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

That was vandalism; I've removed it now. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

This Page of Whaling on Wiki is shameful in its ethics

Folks, This page is shameful. It should be renames "Anti-Whaling Movements History". That is all this page is. It has hardly any information on the history or techniques of whaling which has existed for centuries. Or how during wars the whaling fleets were attacked. Or the great whaling ports. For example there is no culture section with Moby Dick. Come on folks, three small paragraph deals with the hunting of whales. The opposite of this section if the attempts by both gun control advocates or the NRA advocates taking over section on various small arms. It is shameful what one group with an agenda has done to this section. And it has nothing to do as to whether an editor believes whaling should be completely stopped and those that done. This page is in total violation of the ethics of Wikipedia! And you all know it. And the excuse that we have a higher morality for ignoring the ethics of Wiki does not wash!!!! Jack Jackehammond (talk) 07:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

How about the "excuse" that we have a whole article called History of whaling, with over 60K of information? That is prominently linked in the History section of this article? It's regularly the case that when an article becomes too long, it's content is split across multiple articles; one part that is often split is a "History" section. Does that solve your concerns. Well, I guess it leaves the Moby Dick concern...but many WP editors think that "culture" sections aren't appropriate for most articles, as they often devolve into trivial lists. Still, I could see the logic for either adding one here, or making up some additional article. We would need to be clear that we are talking about cultural artifacts (books, songs, dances, etc.) in which whaling is mentioned, rather than the cultural implications of whaling or the overall role that whaling plays in various cultures. On that issue, I'd request the input of other editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

What is needed then is a SEE ALSO section before the notes with "The History of Whaling" and other sections. But the content of this section does not still reflect the subject. It is not about "Whaling" in general but the "anti-Whaling Movement". That is why they have all this content on this page. They know anyone looking up whaling (for example the American Civil War and the almost total destruction of the whaling fleet) are going to enter "Whaling". The editors of this page have to make a decision: ie do we wish to present the general knowledge of whaling or educate those that are interested in whaling as to why is it wrong to continue any hunting of whales. And if you pick the 2nd option there will be other agenda groups demanding the use of general subject pages for their agenda. And btw, I was going to post some information about a whale hunting tactic used in the 1930s off the coast of S. Africa that was appalling. And to the person who has no views one way or another they would have probably swung towards against the hunting of whales. That is the way to push an agenda. Present all the facts, from both sides, and if you facts are more right than the other side, that is all you need. Not use facts like splashing on perfume with a bucket. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 05:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Map of whaling areas

A map of current and historical whaling areas would be very helpful in understanding the economics and history. -- Beland (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Changed the map tag to reflect a global map or maps are needed as part of diffusion of Category:Wikipedia_requested_maps. If a more specific map is needed the template Template:Map_requested_from can be used instead. Mheart (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that map would include a good chunk of the ocean, particularly in the modern era (everything south of 40 S, a hundred mile radius on both sides of the North Pacific, great swathes of the tropics and North Atlantic, etc.). I know one exists for American open-boat whaling in the late 19th century, which includes more restricted areas. It should be free use. SaberToothedWhale (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Content removed

I removed the part about the faroese tourism making the grindadráp a family holiday event. Tourism on the islands is negliable, and the grindadr+ap has nothing in common with a family day out! If you want to compare it to something, then compare it to a hunting trip where the hunter has every respect for the prey, and makes every effort of having the kill go as swiftly as possibly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.172.90.22 (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

"Whaling is immoral"

In what sense is whaling immoral? Portillo (talk) 02:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

It's covered on Whaling controversy. Not saying I agree, just that it's a verified position of animal rights activists. Maybe we should clarify that a bit in this article with a citation? Qwyrxian (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks for your reply. Portillo (talk) 02:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Links

>> Japan politicians defiant despite whaling banLihaas (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Nothing on whaling methods?

Surely an article on whaling should at least mention historical and modern whaling techniques with a description of the equipment used to kill and process them? Either that or at least fork to a separate article that does so in more detail or link to existing relevant articles. Types of harpoon, use of explosives, cyanide and other poisons, on-shore versus off-shore processing, etc. The words "harpoon" and "flensing" are not even in the article. 124.169.92.8 (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems covered in Harpoon and [Flensing]]. I'll put in a See also section. - Rod57 (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Modern whaling section name needs clarification

Could mean 'with harpoon guns since 1863' or 'since IWC moratorium 1986' - Content seems to be the later so have extended section name. - Rod57 (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

How many caught each year

Looking at this and the History of whaling I couldn't find any idea of roughly how many whales were caught each decade say since 1800 let alone of what species. A summary in the History section here would be useful context ? - Rod57 (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is Japans catch since 1985 - Rod57 (talk) 23:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Whale catch around/by Iceland by species - Rod57 (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality of Page

I have nominated this page to have its neutrality checked because several good faith edits designed to improve the neutrality and accuracy of the page were reverted and called "Vandal toll" edits. The specific edits included the following:

1. Addition of scientific research as a stated reason for whaling;
2. Removal/Movement of essentially direct quotes from interested parties (Eg. pro/anti-whaling groups) sourced and presented as fact;
3. Addition of a section devoted to criticism of Japanese Whaling Program in-order to conform to structure and design of similar Wikipedia pages;
4. Movement of content throughout article related to criticism of Japanese Whaling Program to new section.

The previous good faith edits should not have been blindly reverted and labeled as vandal troll(sp) edits, especially when the edits were improving the neutrality of the page and addressing issues with sources. Rather than reverting good faith edits to preserve the status quo on the page, it would be more beneficial to improve the content and quality of the page, including its neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsthetruthforsure (talk • contribs) 17:32, 6 November 2015‎

I think the content was better without the changes. Most, if not all of the changes appear to violate WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Disagreeing with what sources say, or that the sources take a stance against a subject, does not make the edits a violation of a Neutral Point of View - the article on Hitler, for instance, is very negative on the subject, but is well-sourced and perfectly fine. Since we have another article that goes into detail now with the history of anti-whaling activism, I'm going to remove this tag, as the material appears to reside there now.50.111.3.227 (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): S7guan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2018 and 13 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chaznel747.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Greenland

I suggest an update on the Greenlandic mean catch according to the most recent available data. On average for the last 5 years, Greenlanders have hunted 167 baleen (large) whales, mostly minke whales, as well as 528 narwhals, 200 belugas, 308 pilot whales and 2,493 porpoises. These numbers are calculations from the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission catch database (available here). Thanks! MartinNAMMCO (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)