Talk:Taiji dolphin drive hunt

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): Veronicag123.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Elaborating on Headers
Either the title of the article needs to change to "Taiji Dolphin Dive Hunt Controversy" or more information needs to be included on historical background. I will elaborate on the methodology on the hunt, looking up concurrent protests and efforts of activists, and how the hunt may have changed over the years.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/09/wildlife-taiji-dolphin-hunt-begins/

http://uk.whales.org/issues/dolphin-hunts-focus-on-taiji-japan

Veronicag123 (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality tag
I propose this article be renamed to "Taiji dolphin dive hunt controversy" as it includes no historical information whatsoever -- nothing about the history of the region, the hunt, or the Taiji locals' reasons for the hunt. As written, this article is pretty much a "The Taiji hunt is bad for these reasons:" essay. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the article doesn't have much real content at the moment; just a lot of activist history. But I just split it into sections, and I am adding historical content. I'd greatly appreciate it if you could contribute any historical or other information that could make this article better! Yaki-gaijin (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna go ahead and remove the tag, if there are no objections... Yaki-gaijin (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. By the way, the history and composition of the dolphin hunts themselves need to be expanded.  I would suggest going to the Japan Times website and searching for "Taiji dolphin" or something like that.  That should provide enough information to expand that section. Cla68 (talk) 04:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrong title
This article should be called Controversy over Taiji dolphin drive hunt, or something similar. The topic, the dolphin drive hunt, gets a single small paragraph, and the rest of the article is about the documentary The Cove and the POV propaganda of its supporters. Boneyard90 (talk) 06:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits: Reasons and Solution
Recently I made, though "deletions" is really more accurate. Although they contain reliable sources, I am concerned that they are too far off-topic. I gave my reasons in the "edit summary", but for the sake of full disclosure, I will provide reasons here:
 * 1) I made the first deletion because the content described were two "specific incidents of 'environmentalist activities'. General description is sufficient. The topic of the article is the hunt, not the protests."
 * 2) In the second deletion, I removed "material [about Hong Kong Airlines that was] not intrinsically relevant to the hunt. I suggest adding it to the airline page." The title of the article is Taiji dolphin drive hunt; there is almost nothing on the hunt itself. Text contains two sentences in "history". There is nothing about technique, materials, proponents' views, no detailed history, nothing on the quotas, the effect on the economy, cultural significance, or context in relation to other dolphin hunts in Japan (Taiji actually only takes a small percentage of the total, yet gets all the attention). Sections on mercury in the meat may be relevant to consuming the meat, and may therefore be relevant to an article on Dolphin meat, but is not relevant to the hunt itself; yet this is a large section. The section on protests, which is relevant, is sufficient, and does not need to be updated every time Rick O'Barry sneezes. I am only trying to keep the article focused. As I said in the previous topic (see above), most of the material already in the article, and what has been added, belongs in an article, say, Controversy over Taiji dolphin hunt. Then all the protest and mercury-related information could be consolidate under that heading, and it could be linked ot added to the See also section of every related article. Boneyard90 (talk) 00:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I appreciate Boneyard starting this discussion. In my opinion, the topic encompasses many issues, including the hunt itself, animal rights protests, specifically against dolphin drive hunting, Taiji's attempts to combat the protests, free speech in Japan, an award-winning documentary, allegations of excessive mercury consumption in dolphin meat in Japan, and the worldwide trafficking in captive dolphins.  The information I added on the altercation and criminal trial of the activist in Taiji was a real-life example of the level of conflict ongoing around the hunts between activists and the town's hunting ground guards.  The addition of the name of the airline gives concrete information that actual airlines, with names, are part of the captive dolphin supply chain.  Now, this information may seem to stick out and be undue at first, but as the article expands over time with more incidents and nuggets of information, we eventually arrive at an article that fully explores the full topic and all its aspects. Cla68 (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The detailed activities of the protest movement carries undue weight, and are in violation of Neutral point of view. Here is an itemized list of how the added material violates the policy and detracts from the article's main topic:
 * One inserted paragraph was about a cancelled protest, not even an actual protest. Rick O'Barry was quoted as saying it was "too dangerous" after he'd received threats. This is overly-detailed information, and a cancelled protest obviously had no detrimental impact on the hunt; in addition, the "danger" was O'Barry's opinion. The WP:YESPOV: Avoid stating opinions as facts.
 * The section on Environmentalist activities goes off track with material relevant to whaling activities. It further cites "video footage published on Sea Shepherd website". This is little better than citing YouTube, and violates WP:NOTPROMOTION.
 * The mercury level may be relevant, but as you said, in the consumption of dolphin meat; that is a concern subsequent to the hunt, and is included in at least two other articles that I know of. This comes close to violating WP:IRRELEVANT, but probably more accurately violates WP:TANGENT. A brief mention of the problem, after mention that dolphin meat is consumed, should be sufficient (but enough about the school lunches; that happened one time, several years ago). This article does not contain recipes on how to cook dolphin meat, nor should it the minutiae of the mercury studies. It's about the hunt, not the meat.
 * I will concede that the airline mention is noteworthy, because, as you say, it is "part of the captive dolphin supply chain", but it shouldn't be appended to the history section. All information relevant to the dolphinarium trade should be in its own paragraph or section.
 * As far as "expanding over time", I have only seen this article, like others related to dolphin hunts, whale hunts, and Taiji, expand in one direction, that of protest advocates' point of view. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion.
 * As for balance, the History section is one anemic paragraph, compared to eight full paragraphs of material related to the protests, mercury, and the documentary. No additional material should be added, and actually some should be culled, until content directly relevant to a description of the hunt approaches a fair amount of due attention. Boneyard90 (talk) 08:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Reverting
Why is this material "irrelevant" for the article? Cla68 (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Latest Reversion
I made this most recent reversion of sourced material because it was completely irrelevant to the subject of the article. The added text read in part: "an environmental activist from the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society vandalized a whaling monument in Taiji." This article is not about activist groups, their members, or their activities, except as what might impact directly on the dolphin drive hunt in Taiji. The news incident had nothing to do with the subject: the annual dolphin hunt in Taiji. I removed it as irrelevant information. Boneyard90 (talk) 13:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Inaccuracy
In the section Methods it is written that dolphins are caught one at a time and a metal pin be driven trough the cervical region, which is not the case. Usually metal harpoons are being thrown randomly into the dolphins, trying to damage and kill them (trough tissue damage, exsanguination etc.). Driving a pin trough the cervical region would demand the dolphins to be completly still, which is practically impossible. Please correct or if no time, I can do it. (Martinson90). 6:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC).


 * Do you have a reliable source for your claim? Boneyard90 (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The number of killings - citation not exact and misleading
The article says "Annually, an approximation of 22,000 small cetaceans are killed using the methodology of drive hunting, taking place in the waters of Japan" which contradicts the later sentence that "There is a quota set by the government of Japan allowing over 2,000 cetaceans to be slaughtered or captured". I checked the source and the vets analysis source actually says "It is estimated that each year within Japanese waters up to 22,000 small whales, dolphins and porpoises (known collectively as ‘small cetaceans’) are killed in hunts that involves a range of techniques. Most of these small cetaceans are killed in a direct hunt for Dall’s porpoises, but others are taken in a particular category of hunt known as 'drive hunts’ or the drive fishery. I suggest to clarify that the 22,000 figure is related to all methods and whole Japan while 2,000 quota for Taiji by drive hunting only. Sorry that I need your help this time, I have no experience with editing the articles yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.87.173.56 (talk) 02:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Construction
The sentence "Concern is majority through the methodology of the hunt, as actions are viewed as inhumane." makes no grammatical sense. I don't want to undo the work of Carbon Caryatid who's clearly done much work here, and I would correct the construction, but I'm struggling to guess the meaning. I'll give it a guess though. Perhaps "The methodology of the hunt has been widely criticised as inhumane." would be applicable. Also, a citation to the National Geographic article, rather than just mentioning that it exists would help. O0drogue0o (talk) 08:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commenting here. Yes I've done a lot of work on the structure of this article, and on ensuring that sections in other articles do not contradict this main article. I deliberately left a lot of the actual prose in the cumbersome state in which I found it. I was intending to return in a month or so, and improve the written style. I would be delighted to see it done before I get around to it. Good luck! Carbon Caryatid (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

"Dolphin drive hunts exist in coastal communities around the world"
Which "world" is this?

Since the ancient time, across the cultural spectrum, all over the world, the fishermen and sailors considered it a good omen to see a pod of dolphins. Who are these people(s) that went dolphin hunting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.23.87.4 (talk) 01:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Dolphins are hunted in Peru (where the meat is called "sea pork"), and the Faroe Islanders conduct drive hunts against pods of (small) whales. See the article Dolphin drive hunting - Boneyard90 (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)