Talk:River Thames whale

Merge (unsigned)

merge. not sure which title to use

Can anyone suggest an alternative title?

"London whale sighting, 2006" is a very silly title. The whale has not only been sighted but taken onto a barge and sent towards the sea. --Oldak Quill 18:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• How about:
  • Simply "Thames Whale, 2006"
  • "Whale in the Thames, 2006" (sounds a bit too much like a novel)
  • "Whalefest 2006" (okay, that one is a joke)
  • "The River Thames Whale, 2006"
  • "Whale in the Thames, 2006"
  • "John Prescott falls into the river" (that one might be a joke too)

Anon

---

• I think that just "Thames whale" is enough.

Also Anon

Edit conflict. I was just saying the same thing: "There is this terrible habit of disambiguating everything by adding a year to the end of the title. In this case, it is not necessary. This is the first time a whale has floated into Westminster. I say "Thames Whale" or somesuch. --Oldak Quill 19:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)" PS. The word "whale" would need to be capitalised as it is a proper noun - only one of them. Thames whale suggests it is the common name for a species.

From River Thames Whale

The River Thames Whale was a juvenile Northern Bottlenose whale which was discovered swimming in the River Thames in Central London on Friday 20 January 2006. It appeared to have become lost, as its normal habitat would have been around the coasts of the far north of Scotland and Ireland, and in the seas around the arctic ocean. It died after suffering from convulsions as it was being rescued shortly after 7pm on 21 January 2006.

20th January

At 0830 GMT on Friday the 20th of January, a man on a train called to say that he believed he had been hallucinating, as he thought he had just spotted a whale swimming in the River Thames. Further throughout the day, more and more reports of seeing a whale were coming in. The reports were confirmed as TV cameras captured the bottlenose whale on film. Many people on the streets of London came out to see this amazing site, they were filled with excitement and amazement. However, the whale beached itself several times during the day as the tide went out, members of the public went into the water to scare the whale off, so it would return to the water. Concern began to grow for the whale, as bottlenose whales are used to swimming in seas up to 700 metres deep, but at its deepest, the Thames was only several metres deep. Blood was also visible coming from the whale. As night approached, there were signs that it may have been swimming with the current out of London towards the sea, as there were reported sightings of him in Greenwich. However there were no official sightings after 7pm for the rest of the day.

21st January

There was fear early in the day that the whale could have perished, as it had not been seen for a significant amount of time, however it was spotted before midday. At about 12pm the whale once again beached itself. Whale experts decided that that was the time to act, they stepped in and captured the whale, covered its eyes to prevent it from panicing, and examined its health. After 2 hours, the whale was slowly and gently lifted onto a barge by a crane. There were thousands of people watching the situation develop on the banks of the river, and the images were seen across the world. The excitement of the previous day had disappeared, there was now serious worry that the whale would not be able to survive for much longer. The barge rushed along the Thames towards the sea, news channels provided non-stop coverage of the journey. It reached the Thames Barrier at approximately 5pm GMT. As each hour passed, there was growing concern for the whale's health, it was said to be taking a turn for the worse, and there was a likelyhood that it could have been euthanised. At 7pm, just as it was reaching the Thames Estuary, the whale suffered several convulsions, and died.

Cause for reaching London

As of 7:40 GMT, it was still unknown why exactly the whale had found itself inside the River Thames. One of the suspected causes is due to sonar emmited from large ships, which have been known to cause marine mammal beachings in the past. The ships could have confused the whale's navigation, which lead it to head much further south than it's usual waters. Another reason could have been that it was already seriously ill, and that it came to the shallow waters, to avoid it from drowning in case of exhaustion.

Impact

Many people now believe that this whale has increased the profile of whales to the public, and the opposition to the whaling industry.

Other whales

Throughtout the 2 days that the whale was in the Thames waters, there were several unconfirmed reports of a second whale. On 21 January, there was reports of hearing whale song around the Thames Estuary, which many believed could have been the Thames whale's mother. The body of a small marine mammal was discovered on the banks of the Thames on 21 January, early thoughts were that it could have been another young Bottlenose whale, but it is now believed to have been a porpoise. If it was indeed a porpoise, it may increase the likelyhood that the Thames Whale found itself stranded due to sonar, as it seemed to affect other sea mammals.

My article

Well thanks for at least having what I wrote put above, instead of lost in cyberspace. Jamandell (d69) 19:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Gonzo?

Why is it called Gonzo? --Dangherous 22:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't really been given any single name yet, although I have no idea where the Gonzo name came from either. Hmm, one of the links on the page says this "The whale - which the staff at LEWIS PR have nicknamed 'Gonzo' - seems to be stuck in shallow water near to Battersea Bridge."

So by reading that statement, it sounds only like a personal name from this person on that blog, so I think it should be removed from the list of names, for now at least. Jamandell (d69) 23:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Cartoon

In the external links, there is a cartoon. Is it really necessary? Does it add much to the article quality? And doesn't there seem to be enough links on there anyway? Jamandell (d69) 23:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Photo

Is there a chance we could get a closer picture on the whale? I know there needs to be one which isn't copyrighted etc, but still, does anyone know if they are able to have one? It feels that since this article is about the whale itself, it should have a close up picture. Jamandell (d69) 23:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's a new photo - I persuaded someone on Flickr to upload it to Wikimedia Commons under a GNU license. Frankie Roberto 21:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh that's great, thanks! Jamandell (d69) 17:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

For amusement . . .

Vandalism by User:81.174.186.108 removed from Bottlenose whale:

On January 20 2006, a Northern Bottlenose Whale was spotted in Central London in the River Thames. (BBC) The Thames whale reached as far up river as Albert Bridge before it was swarmed by starving and ragged homeless, dragged into Battersea park, and flensed with broken wine bottles. The authorities have as of yet performed no arrests or fines, as this action is 'inconcievably pro-active' for the box-dwelling winos, and is seen as a potential case of human evolution in the lower class. The whale blubber is even being rendered beneath the Albert Bridge into oil, and while the stench has been noted as far east as Soho, the enlightened bourgois middle class are finding the affair morally uplifting, and a crack BBC reality TV crew has been dispatched to view human evolution in action. There are reports an American version of this upcoming show will be released on NBC.

On January 21 2006, reports of the whale bones having been built into a temple to the Uber-Daemon Alstrogothia are being investigated, and police are considering action, as Queen Elizabeth II had a shocking experience with Alstrogothia as a young girl in private school.

Images

I re-arranged 4 of the images, putting them under the appropriate day, etc (and left the 'nicest' as the main pic), I also removed Image:Thames Whale Battersea Bridge.jpg since I felt it was the least informative or needed image, and the article was over-crowded. My apologies to whoever uploaded it, and you're of course welcome to re-insert it. (Though please, not at the top...only one main picture per articles, others get spaced throughout) Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 21:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Citation Needed?

I understand that naturally the many nicknames need evidence (although I already feel that there are too many, perhaps it would be best to let history decide what one we put there?) But anyway, I find it amazed to believe that "London Whale" and "Thames whale" need citation, River Thames whale is the name of the article for goodness sake! I don't even think they are nicknames. Jamandell (d69) 23:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the last point - those two aren't really nicknames; if they are in the nicknames list, they shouldn't be although they should be redirects to this article if they aren't already. Disagree on the history point though; can't see any reason why, if a nickname has a citable source, that it shouldn't go into the list SP-KP 22:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there really a need for an article?

Yes the whale generated a lot of media coverage but it was over blown by SKY News and BBC News 24 who put the whale on 24 hours. Just like many people feel that the mass hysteria in the aftermath of Diana, Princess of Wales dying was fake and media led, I strongly believe that the media coverage made people take a false intrest. (Although at the time they didn't consider it false).

Even if the emotion shown by the mass media and public towards the whale was genuine, does this event have any significant place in London's history? My own belief is that the article is here as a result of the intense media coverage and not due to any real need to have one. {Anon}

Well there has already been a vfd and it was given overwhelming support. Of course it's worthy of an article, in my eyes anyway, because it was the subject of an important news story, it brought whales back into the attention of Brits etc. I'm sure there are hundreds more articles less worthy to be kept than this.

And if you believe that the article on Dian's death was fake and media led, well it doesn't mean it did not happen. Whether you think the Thames whale was mass histeria, it did happen, and the evnts I believe are worthy for a Wiki article. Jamandell (d69) 13:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Impact

Many people now believe that this whale has increased the profile of whales to the public, and the opposition to the whaling industry. Many whale experts that were interviewed on Sky News believed this whale will leave a legacy, and it will have helped whales across the planet. They also took note of the fact that the Thames Whale was seen around the Palace of Westminster, the British seat of government.

Is there any evidence at all for this idea, which has been reverted and reinstated? "Many experts on Sky News" doesn't exactly add up to much, and WP is not a crystal ball. Flapdragon 19:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"It's only a whale, for f***'s sake"

Would anyone like to explain why this link has been deleted twice, with no more explanation than "irrelevant" (which it clearly is not, whatever other objection there may be)? It's perfectly relevant as an example of how many people felt the hype was excessive, no less informative than the "LEWIS PR WHALE WATCH" blog, and no more frivolous than the Matt cartoon. Is it just because it offends the sensibilities of whale-lovers? Flapdragon 19:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's insensitive, not relevant to the context of the article and doesn't enhance the article in any other way. Perhaps if there was something a little less extreme putting the sympathy for the whale into question, but that link is just not needed. Jamandell (d69) 22:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that answers the question pretty effectively. We need to retain some sense of proportion here. We're talking about the death from natural causes of one animal that caught the fancy of the media for a couple of days, not the Holocaust. That is presumably the point the link was trying to make in its irreverent (but very relevant) way. As for "insensitive", I realise some people felt very sad about it all, but Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral encyclopaedia; it is not censored for "content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive", and anyway I doubt it's read by the whale's grieving relatives. Let's be sensible about this! Flapdragon 03:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but no need to go to extremes. Jamandell (d69) 19:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think it so extreme. It doesn't say "nuke all whales" or "hope it suffered" or anything. Is it just the use of the F-word that offends you? Flapdragon 22:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No answer. I suppose it just doesn't seem "right" somehow to some people to be irreverent about whales. Flapdragon 23:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for not answering until now, but until yesterday I hadn't noticed your comment, and my computer's been acting up. Anyway, there is nothing wrong with putting the media frenzy of the whale into question, there is nothing stopping it from being put into the article, but a spoof of a BBC News page is not enough to convey the point across, it wouldn't further people's understanding in my opinion. So by all means, put the point across, but I think there is a little more needed than a crude spoof. Jamandell (d69) 13:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No apologies necessary. As soon as you have written a spoof that comes up to your own exacting standards in spoofdom we'll link to it. But seriously the whole point was not how splendidly witty or subtle the spoof was; it wasn't linked to for its entertainment value, but rather to demonstrate that some members of the public were fed up with what they saw as the excessive and sentimental coverage of the whale story, and the spoof certainly went the rounds at the time. It's not a question of whether one likes a linked-to page, this is an encyclopaedia not a selection of favourite links, it's whether they have a point to make. In this case the point it was making has been eloquently demonstrated by the unarticulated but passionate resistence to even linking to a page that dared to be disrepectful about the mighty monarch of the seas (and using a swearword too -- extreme stuff indeed). Not something that would have happened if an absent-minded sea-slug had found itself stranded in the Thames, or an endangered but unsexy species of rat had been found nesting under Westminster Bridge. Flapdragon 14:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced nicknames

I've deleted the following from the article, as no-one has been able to cite a source.

• "Willzyx" named after the whale in the South Park episode, "Free Willzyx", in which a whale went missing in similar circumstances.
• "James Whale". The name of a popular radio presenter on talkSPORT.
• "Westminster Whale", as it was seen near the Houses of Parliament.

Resting Place

This section needs a rewrite and I'm soon to take it on. Problems include:

• Don't like the section title. Much as I too was caught up in the emotion while it was alive, it's now primarily a scientific specimen and part-time tourist attraction.
• Where's the reference that the Sun was responsible for getting it to the museum (apart from the Sun itself, obviously)? The NHM has a legal right to examine all beached remains. I've seen other mentions that donations were involved, but we need more info here. There's also an implication that the NHM is failing in its 'responsibility' to display the remains, though it has no such obligation, the vast majority of its collection is not on public display, and large displays are planned years in advance. The remains have since gone temporarily on display anyway...
• I'll add more about the the process of preparing and storage

Loxlie 17:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. It was me who started this section and called it "Resting place", I just couldnt think of a better way to put it at the time (though I still can't think of one now) Jamandell (d69) 22:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Since records began

The lead section states that this was the first whale that has been seen in the Thames since records began in 1913. I have never been able to ascertain what these "records" are. Did a government official decide in 1913 to count the number of whales in the Thames? ++ MortimerCat (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)