Talk:Institute of Cetacean Research

Extra info
I have added an extra info. The previious article appear to imply that ICR is a instiute invented solely to provide cover for commercial whaling which is not the case. It has been a genuine research institute way before the whaling become a political issue. It had to absorbed whaling facility because it previously relied its scientific data on commercial whaling operation which ended after the ban. It now fund whaling operation from the sale of whale meat. FWBOarticle 11:41, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * It pretty much is an institute invented solely to provide cover for commercial whaling. This seems very self-evident.  BB  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.224.137 (talk) 06:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is that it isn't completely self evident. It is a nonprofit organization operating under Japanese government law.  It is very hard to conclusively say that it is in existence for the primary purpose of commercial whaling.  Wikipedia isn't around for guessing without conclusive evidence.  We must only state the known facts, not personal interpretation.  The controversy section is around for displaying the arguments of critics.  We need to make sure that the rest of the article isn't completely biased by our own opinion.
 * That having been said, yeah I agree the ****ing ICR is there just to whale and try to open up the trade again. >.>
 * But hey this isn't a forum its an Encyclopedia so what are you going to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.207.112 (talk) 02:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, then: just cite the fact that they don't produce any peer-reviewed research. This is a fact.  The first comment is probably from someone involved with the industry; the broken English is suggestive.  GeoffP1974  —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeoffP1974 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * yep, and the same guy has his hands all over the "Whaling in Japan" page. I'm slowly attempting to provide much-needed balance to these pages.  Lets see how long the following bit lasts here on the ICR front..
 * Environmental groups dispute the Japanese claim of research "as a disguise for commercial whaling, which is banned."
 * (first added to Whale Wars page yesterday) Fhue (talk) 03:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's hard to say what to put in the article. "Officially" it's scientific research but it's plain as day it's a front. The question is how obvious does something have to be before it can be good enough for the wiki? If what we have isn't enough there was an article I read in the paper a month or two ago that was about countries talking about the situation. If someone can confirm that they were almost unanimously in agreement about it being a front it would be the word of experts on the subject from across the world vs the Institute of Cetacean Researches word. --71.49.89.113 (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Scare Quotes
I'm wondering if the quotation marks around "research" in places where it's not a direct quote are appropriate. If the claim is that it is a research organization - then it should be called that (sans quotes) until there is conclusive evidence that it is not. I completely agree that it's pretty clear that they are a front for a commercial whaling enterprise - but it's an encyclopedia, and "pretty clear" doesn't really cut it. Yes? I know such things are likely to be contentious for people who are passionate about these isuses - so I want to mention it here before I make the change so as to avoid an edit war. Lekoman (talk) 11:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Its not pretty clear though. Its clear, thus being "research".  Link no longer works.  Dvferret (talk) 04:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Speaking as a professional scientist, if ICR does not produce articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals, then it is not a "research" organization. Peer-reviewed publication is the only end-point to a legitimate scientifc endeavor and the primary measure of the quality of an institute's research.  That's not my opinion, it is a fact based on scientific method.  The fact that ICR refuses and/or fails to publish in bonafide peer-reviewed scientific journals constitutes "conclusive evidence" that ICR is not a legitimate research organization.  Therefore, the quotations around "research" are appropriate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.65.95 (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's a borderline case between scare quotes (which are discouraged in Wikipedia) and quotation marks. They call it "research", but we can't call it "research" because it's quite clearly not actually research. A solution might be to use the word only in slighly longer quotations as in "research into cetacean whatever"[ref to ICR source], to make it clear that the quotation marks mark quotations. Hans Adler 19:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well then lets also call this an "encyclopedic" entry filled with "facts" because they surely are very disputable. For example this article states that only 10 papers have been published, none of which were peer reviewed, yet if I look at the documentation and sources given on this very same page I see that about 105 peer reviewed papers have been released and about 185 scientific documents presented. And in the past 3 years alone about 75 papers...
 * See for yourselves here http://www.icrwhale.org/JARPAResults.htm here http://www.icrwhale.org/JARPApaper.htm and here http://www.icrwhale.org/JARPA91paper.htm.
 * I can't edit the article, but I seriously urge anyone with authority to do so. If the cause is dear to you, it really doesn't help discrediting it this blatantly, at the same time calling ICR work "research". This article is nothing but "scare qoute" research "scare quote" on ICR, if it keeps telling lies like this.
 * 90.184.16.234 (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Through this article's history there have been various claims (less than 10 peer-reviewed articles, 1 per year, etc.) that don't seem to make much sense and which it seems never were backed with a proper source. The ICR's own list can't be used to prove there were practically no peer-reviewed articles. Of course it doesn't prove the opposite either. Note that most of the early articles are cited as having appeared in "Rep. int. Whal. Commn". This resolves to "The Annual Report of the International Whaling Commission". In other words, they were not peer-reviewed research but bureaucratic reports which were presumably published regardless of their correctness. It seems that around 1999 there was an effort to gain credibility as a 'research' institution by actually publishing something. The current output, when measured in number of papers per year, is not unlike what you often see as the output of a single researcher.
 * The unsupported anti-ICR statements need to be removed. But of course there is a reason why they have been added: People felt the need for a counter-balance to the excessive mission statement that makes up the section "Research programs". This section has been tagged as unsourced since May 2009, and I will soon remove it unless someone can find a source. (I once thought it was easy and looked on the ICR website, but with no success.) That will solve the problem: The entire section will simply disappear. Hans Adler 11:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Bias Propaganda encyclopedia?
This article shows a very clear bias in just about every way imaginable.

1. "research" scare quotes. This apparently has to do with whether there are or aren't peer-reviewed reports. According to this link there are several every year. I don't think wikipedia is in a position to determine how much research can be attributed to "one" scientist either. - http://www.icrwhale.org/JARPAResults.htm - http://www.icrwhale.org/JARPA91paper.htm Or do we have sources to say that Jpn. J. Zoo Wildl. Med., Journal of Reproduction and Development, J.Cetacean Res.Manage, etc. are not peer-reviewed journals?

- "The ICR hunts and kills nearly a thousand whales yearly [5] while claiming that it is necessary for cetacean "research". The IRC has produced less than 10 research papers including only one 2001[6], none of which are peer-reviewed.[7]."

Odd, I count 10 published papers since 2007 alone. http://www.icrwhale.org/JARPA91paper.htm

2. In the controversy section there is a lot of issues about ICR research being criticized in IWC. However, IWC has also expressed approval. There are pro and anti-whaling members of IWC, but it seems only 1 side of that is being presented. http://www.e-kujira.or.jp/iwc/2009funchal/text/text_ext3.html

3. If we're going to include sentences like this: "Environmental groups dispute the Japanese claim of research "as a disguise for commercial whaling, which is banned" I think it's only fair that we include a sentence describing how Japan could quit IWC and whale commercially at their discretion without bothering with research, as Norway and Iceland have done. There is no penalty to leaving IWC.

4. http://www.oceannenvironment.org/japan_is_out_to_kill_1035_whales.htm  Is this really the kind of source you want to put into an Encyclopedia? I'm sure there is something far less sensationalist than "TERRORISM against Whales."

5. Accusing people of being paid by ICR because they make a good point on the talk page is pretty pathetic.

That's all I've got for now. I look forward to seeing this article look less like a propaganda tool.24.35.12.76 (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's been awhile but your enumerated points deserve a response, though I don't have the time to reply to all. Last summer this article looked like a press release from the ICR, so it's come along way to being more balanced. Specifically, putting the term research in quotes is indeed a questionable way to say "they call it research but we're not so sure, or we doubt it..." Nonetheless, there are several others' comments above which address this issue. What is the alternative? To remove the quotes gives their claim undue weight.
 * Remarking on an editor's bias may not be the ideal way to discuss their contributions, but it is far from pathetic -- corporations and lobbyists are known to abuse Wikipedia in order to further their causes. PrBeacon (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, no ICR logo, but instead a picture of a whaling harpoon? 71.160.221.11 (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Japanese Government's whalers
I've just removed a sentence that read:
 * The Institute has also been called the "Japanese's Government's whalers".

The source, Hardline warrior in war to save the whale, is an article about Sea Sheperd's Watson and their campaign against whaling. I was expecting the article to quote Watson calling the ICR that, in which case we could amend the sentence along the lines of:
 * Paul Watson of Sea Shepherd has said that the scientific research body had "effectively become the Japanese Government's whalers."

The quote, however, comes from the nameless author of the article (or editorial?). I find the bias and inaccuracies in this article as well as the notability and relevance of the author and the remark such that it does not belong. The viewpoint is well represented. We don't need to give a platform for this drivel. --Swift (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears to be a mirrored story from [], which appears to be an op-ed piece.-- Terrillja talk  22:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * At least that source gives the author: John Vidal, the Guardian's environment editor. I would put Paul Watson: Sea Shepherd's stern 'warrior' defies Japanese whalers as the original. --Swift (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing Issues
Undoubtedly this is incorrectly formatted comment. Use of Sea Shepherd propaganda machine to source harvest numbers does little to provide impartial and unbiased perspective. If numbers of harvested animals are sourced to organizations infamous for their altercations with the organization in question, we can hardly assume unbiased information is included. Major media outlets and government filings should be sourced as reliable sources of data. Currently this article is a detriment to Wikipedia, and the use of this source is akin to sourcing "The Eternal Jew" for an article on the history of Judaism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.102.237.50 (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

JARPA/JARPN
This info also appears in the Whaling in Japan article, almost verbatim except for the graph there. As I & others note in Talk:Whaling in Japan this info shouldn't be in both articles [in full]''.. The "research" doesn't qualify as scientific because it's not peer-reviewed, and thus should not be given undue weight here. The extensive JARPA/JARPN sections may belong in one or both of the articles, but not in both at full length. In one or the other, they should be summarized and a link to the full version included.''  PrBeacon (talk) 08:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Theft of Whale Meat
In the Controversy section, I think it would be good to include the accusations by former whalers that members of the Japanese whaling crews are stealing large quantities of whale meat for their own personal profit. The ICR seems to know of this and does nothing about it. See  http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20100609a9.html --Westwind273 (talk) 04:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The ICR as a threat to democracy in Japan
I think the article could use references from Jun Morikawa's book "Whaling in Japan". http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fb20100425a1.html Specifically, the amakudari system of corruption between government bureaucrats and politicians serves to take control of the Japanese government away from the Japanese people themselves. It is reminiscent of the military government （軍事政権）that took control of Japan in the years leading up to World War II and led Japan on a similar path that antagonized the international community. The ICR strikes at the very nature of democracy itself. --Westwind273 (talk) 11:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Tsunami and ICR fleet
Does anyone know if the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami damaged the ICR whaling fleet? The Whaling fleet was headed back to home port according to this 18 February 2011 press release on the ICR official wwebsite: http://www.icrwhale.org/pdf/110218ReleaseENG.pdf Dreammaker182 (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

CUNTS
Is this just vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.4.248 (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It was removed. Thank you for pointing that out. Oda Mari (talk) 08:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

False rumor
I remove this addition as the information is groundless and misleading. Please see these. and. Oda Mari (talk) 09:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this paper relevant?
I just removed this from the External Links section, because I fail to see the relevance to ICR. If anyone feels it is relevant, then please figure out how to work it in as reference. Good luck doing that, especially since the paper is about the North Atlantic. Groll †ech ( talk ) 22:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Kristin Kaschner et al. Modeling and Mapping Trophic Overlap Between Marine Mammals and Commercial Fisheries in the North Atlantic

Earthquake Recovery Funds
Multiple reliable NPOV sources state "earthquake recovery funds" were granted to ICR for the 2011-2012 whale hunt. user:Veritas_Fans has repeatedly removed this language and removed the references providing it because he claims it is misleading. Yet as the referenced sources explicitly use the term "earthquake recovery funds", the removal of such terminology/sources amounts to biasing the article, misrepresenting the sources, and white-washing the topic. As multiple reliable NPOV sources state "earthquake recovery funds", this is what the article should reflect.  ~Autumnal Monk~  talk 03:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I explained in my edit the rationale for removing the misleading terminology. I hope that your abnormal insistence upon use of this otherwise immaterial term does not suggest ulterior motive.


 * The sources may indeed use the term "earthquake recovery fund". This wording is non-technical, finds no usage in equivalent situations, and provides no additional information than the existing wording "supplementary budget... passed by the Japanese Government for reconstruction after the March 11 earthquake and tsunami". However, use of the term "earthquake recovery fund" becomes potentially misleading in light of existing confusion regarding the origin of that money. Certain elements have propagated the notion that the money for the whaling program was appropriated from donated charitable funds, which has confused even media reporting of the issue. See:
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/13/japan-disaster-funds-whaling-research
 * http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-07/japan-whaling-fleet-embarks/3716546
 * The use of the term then, in this context, is vague and potentially misleading. Replacement of the term with the more specific wording I provided comes at no loss to clarity or factual basis, but serves only to strengthen them.
 * Should you continue to insist upon the misleading wording, and to alter the article accordingly, it will speak only of a bias and violation of Wikipedia policy. Veritas Fans (talk) 04:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You, as an editor, have to right to judge what is inaccurate or misleading in the reporting of reliable news sources. We repeat what is in reliable sources, we do not reinterpret it.  Doing so amounts, at best, to original research and is a violation of Wikipedia policy.  At worst it could appear to be a systematic attempt to censor Wikipedia in line with a political agenda.  And while it is reportedly true that no donated international funds were used to support the whale hunt, it is also documentedly true that the ICR received funds from a budget package that was designated "earthquake recovery fund" and was rationalized as a means of supporting the whaling industry because it was, reportedly, in some locations, adversely impacted by the earthquake/tsunami.  Further, your "alternate wording" is convoluted, difficult to parse, and has poor flow. In my opinion it smacks of concealment via obfuscation.
 * Your argument that insisting that wording used in multiple reliable sources be used in the article is "bias and a violation of Wikipedia policy" is laughable. As are you attempts to label my edits WP:vandalism (the definition of which, apparently, you need to examine). Alternatively, I can assure you that removal, by a single purpose account such as yours, of well referenced and accurately quoted material, as part of an evident pattern of article-biasing edits, is MUCH more likely to be considered vandalism and a violation of Wikipedia WP:policy.
 * In light of our obvious differences of perspective I suggest that no further changes to the article be made regarding this until the input of other experienced editors/admins is be obtained.  ~Autumnal Monk~  talk 00:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You are correct that it is not our position as editors to reinterpret news sources. But it is our position to ensure that misleading information is not included. Your inexplicable and strangely determined insistence upon the use of a demonstrably imprecise and confusing term that brings with it no recognizable benefit falls well beyond the bounds of what is expected of an editor. As I have stated, it suggests an agenda.
 * Your insistence upon referring to a government budget as a "relief fund", particularly in light of the circumstances of heightened potential for confusion that has been explained to you, is strange and irrational. No other government budgets are labelled in this way. Your use of a source such as "Mother Jones" to justify use of this term does not reassure.
 * Should you indeed find the wording I provided to be beyond your skills of comprehension, then you are more than welcome to suggest alternative phrasing that does not include the misleading terminology you so strongly favor.
 * I look forward to having this matter reviewed by a third party. Veritas Fans (talk) 10:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Institute of Cetacean Research. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090414032522/http://icrwhale.org:80/agecomposition.htm to http://www.icrwhale.org/agecomposition.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

"Some", or "many" environmental groups oppose research whaling?
The article at least twice states that "some environmental groups oppose research whaling, claiming it is a cover for commercial whaling" (paraphrased). I would have assumed that the fact that quite a large number of environmental groups share this view would make "many" a better indication of the number/proportion of said groups that share said view. Regards, Aardwolf A380 (talk) 11:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I would simplify it by omitting the words "some" or "many". Just leave it at "environmental groups oppose research whaling." Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Regards, Aardwolf A380 (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Institute of Cetacean Research. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080518044428/http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/sanctuaries.htm to http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/sanctuaries.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070819151058/http://www.baleinesendirect.net/pdf/whaling-letter_to_NY_Times.pdf to http://www.baleinesendirect.net/pdf/whaling-letter_to_NY_Times.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080210225342/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jXNhKsPXFcVHEytPDe2fdRphchiA to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jXNhKsPXFcVHEytPDe2fdRphchiA
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110111122220/http://icrwhale.org/eng-index.htm to http://www.icrwhale.org/eng-index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Institute of Cetacean Research. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090129153258/http://www.icrwhale.org/abouticr.htm to http://www.icrwhale.org/abouticr.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Institute of Cetacean Research. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140331145014/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/148/18162.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/148/18162.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)