Talk:Whaling/Archive 4

Picture
I deleted the picture in the introduction which had the actual whale guts sprawled out all over the deck of a boat. I personally felt that such an image was too inappropriately shocking to be put at the very start of the article. After all, we would not begin an article about cadavers with a picture of a half-disected man. --- 18 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.44.230.235 (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Death does start with an image of a dead man. I looked at cadaver, and it needs some serious work, including, in my opinion, an image of a cadaver at the top of the article.  I think that picture of historical whaling is very informative and improves the article.  Can you think of an alternative image to start the article off with?  Remember, wikipedia is not censored and this is an article on whaling, not on whales.  I'm replacing the image for now.   Please discuss the issue here again before removing the image.  - Enuja  (talk) 05:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't really know much about editing the wikipedia, so I'm sorry if I did anything that was against the way things are normally done. I'll agree with you it's an excellent image, and could be included somewhere further down in the article. What I'm concerned with is starting the article with such a shocking and potent image, since the reader will not have the ability to intepret the picture until they read further on. For example, if an article on animal experimentation begins with a dead cat, the emotional impact of that first image will just overpower the actual content of what is written. Once the context is understood, the more powerful images can be shown. Maybe that first image could be replaced with a picture of the Yushin Maru 2? --- 18 January 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.44.230.235 (talk) 06:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia! It's good to be bold when editing articles.  I just took a closer look at Image:Whaling-french_and_dead_whale.jpeg.  In the past, the only things I'd clearly seen were the people, the whale's mouth, and the blood on the deck, so it did not seem very graphic to me.  Looking at the full image, I can see that some of the whalers are holding the skin and blubber up with hooks, but I honestly had not noticed that before, and do not think that it is easy to identify in the thumbnail size of the image that is in the article.  I do think that Image:Whalemeat.jpg, Image:Whale_meat_on_dish.jpg and Image:Whaling_in_the_Faroe_Islands.jpg, all used further down in the article, are more graphic because you can see the meat in a boy's hands, nicely cut up on a plate, and, in the last image, you can actually clearly see guts spilling out of dolphins. It is rather inappropriate! In fact, that last image is a featured image, and we usually put featured images as the lead image, but in my opinion that one is too graphic.  I feel that a good change would be to switch the whaling on a boat image with the engraving of old whaling.  I am a bit hesitant to do it, because History of whaling has a different engraving as its lead image, but it is a possibility.  We could also put the featured image of dead dolphins on top, but I doubt that would be better in your estimation.
 * By the way, if you type four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of your comments on talk pages it's easier to identify who wrote what comment, and the bot won't go behind you and sign for you. - Enuja  (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a good historic picture, but I tend to agree that it is not entirely appropriate to the article. The blood and guts do not strike me as problematic: whaling is an inherently messy business, and need not be santized. However, the vessel in question is not a whaling ship: it is a research vessel from the Monaco aquarium. So, in essence, these are not whalers in the photo, simply early researchers. It is rather akin to putting a photo of vivisection on an article about abbatoirs. I would suggest replacing it with any number of images specifically of whaling vessels/crews. What ought to be borne in mind in selecting an image, I think, is the contemporary fact that most whaling occurring today is done by indigenous groups and small coastal communities. An encyclopedic image is intended to be a visual summary of an activity, ideally in contemporary form. An image of a Japanese factory whaling ship would not suffice, as this is not how the majority of whaling is done in the present day. Neither, I think, does a dated photo of the Prince of Monaco on a research vessel. Contemporary reality is best served by an image of a Norwegian coastal whaling vessel, icelandic catcher boat, Chukotkan umiaaq, or Eskimo skin boat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.51.132.154 (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * oh, its appropriate. whaling is the murder of an intelligent creature. if people are going to look up whats its like they need to be exposed to it all. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Dolphin. Dolphin. Dolphin. Dolphin. Sperm Whale?
The article cited for "whale" (it was almost entirely about dolphins) intelligence is not a reliable source in my mind. It didn't mentioned baleen whales, the primary target of whalers today, a single time. The only reference made to species hunted today was of the sperm whale (not in name, but that appears to have been the species Simmonds was talking about when he mentioned the possible cultural knowledge whales possess). With that, I will be reverting the section that states that "whales are highly social animals." It is a extremely vague statement. Seeing as how the article only mentioned a handful of species (the common bottlenose dolphin, Indo-pacific bottlenose dolphins, false killer whales, and probably sperm whales), it appears "whales" in this context refers to these species alone. What about mysticetes? As I said above, as they comprise the vast majority of species taken today, shouldn't a section on "Whale Intelligence" focus on them? I believe it should. Most mysticetes, including blue, fin, sei, and right whales, are by no means "highly social animals." That being said, I will be reverting the section to say: "some species of whale are highly social." Jonas Poole (talk) 03:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, I understand that. I was just making sure the article here said the same thing as the article it cited.  I would be much happier if you provided a reference to replace what was removed, although I don't think the sentence as it stands is contentious.  Is there dispute as to whether all species of whales are highly social?  I was under the impression that they all were.  Djk3 (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Value for research
I made edits here on 15 December 2007, however, for some reason they do not show in the section still, although you can see them in edit mode - I have no idea why - can anyone fix this / shed some light? SammytheSeal (talk) 09:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The named footnote preceding your text was simply missing a termination code. See Footnotes for the proper code.  All I had to do was add a "/" to fix the problem.  - Enuja (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Enuja :D ... After reading through the footnotes link i´m even more confused though ..lol... I´ll take your word for it ;)SammytheSeal (talk) 07:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

St. Kitts and Nevis Declaration
User:SqueakBox removed the link to the St. Kitts and Nevis Declaration in the lead. This is probably an improvement of the lead, but I think that the declaration should be somewhere in the article, even if not in the lead. Any ideas where? - Enuja (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe " The arguments for and against whaling" ? SammytheSeal (talk) 07:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, under "Modern Whaling" would probably fit betterSammytheSeal (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * Lead too short
 * History of whaling summary too short/too much attention given to modern whaling over past whaling
 * Controversy section seems a little long - possibly "spin out" and have a shorter summary section here? Richard001 (talk) 08:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anything about whaling
And I still don't. Can anyone help? There's no section that actually talks about whaling itself, the entire article is about the conservation issues. What equipment is used in modern whaling? What sort of boats do whalers use? Do they use harpoons? Explosives? Do they drive whales into shallow waters? How many people are employed as whalers? Is it well paid? And what are these "traditional hunting methods and equipment" used in the Caribbean? Do we have to guess? There's some information on how whaling was done in the past in history of whaling, but nothing on how it's done today. Neıl ☎  10:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * i concur, this entire article is not about whaling. why do they do it? the current article talks about whale meat.. but only how it's probably unsafe. so whalers only fish whales for their meat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.70.31 (talk) 11:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the original comment (Neil's). Any thoughts on what to do about this? (I mean thoughts about possible alternative structure etc) Jonathanmills (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Further to this, the more I look at (and edit) the article, the more glaring this flaw becomes. For example, under 'Whaling in Canada', the first sentence is how Canada left the IWC and is no longer bound by its decisions (!) This isn't an article about the IWC, it's about *whaling*, and there's no way that should be the very first sentence in a section on 'Canada and whaling' (IMHO, of course). It's similar throughout the article. The whole thing reads like it's just talking about the relationship of countries to the IWC and more specifically the commercial-whaling moratorium. Jonathanmills (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This is still not fixed. If I was an expert i would fix it. How can the word "harpoon" be not be in an article about whaling. It lacks all info on the process. Hondaracer (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * i know a little on the subject, but cant offer sources except for whale wars. the japanese us exlposive tipped harppons, then drag the whale next to the ship and either slowly shoot it with a low caliber gun, or slowly electrocute it to death. i think iceland and norway use similar tactics. the native groups usually use hand harpoon i think, but i cant be sure. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Whale oil is used little today
Forgive me for being obtuse here - but what has Wilbur the pig to do with citing whale oil is little used today? I see no mention of whale oil on the link /cite provided SammytheSeal (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's just the introduction. The article goes on to say: "Two centuries ago, whale oil fetched a high price because people used it in lamps. Whales had instrumental value. Electric lights are better and cheaper than oil lamps; accordingly, there is little or no market for whale oil today." (emphasis added)  I understand how that citation can look silly from just the first page.  :)  Djk3 (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Would´nt it be better to find a cite that people can follow and actually read? As it stands, the cite is practically useless ;). In addition, Spermaceti oil was used much more recently as lubricant in rocket gyroscopes - it´s one of the reasons the US stockpiled it in the 1950-60´s. It has since been replaced with synthetic lubricants. SammytheSeal (talk) 08:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You can follow and read it, but it's an academic journal, so it's not free to read. You can probably access it without paying by looking from a computer on a college campus.  (That's how I accessed it; my college subscribes to The Hastings Center Report.)  It's absolutely not useless.  Someone requested a citation for that sentence, and that article has text that directly supports the sentence in question.  If you're suspicious that the text I quoted here is in the article, go to a local university and check from a lab computer.  Djk3 (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My point precisely, It´s assumed that all have access to a local college or university... and access to a computer account there. That´s obviously not the case. It´s not a case of " If you're suspicious " in the slightest, cites should support statements, and readers should´nt have to travel a few hundred miles and apply for access to a computer in order to verify/ access a cite. Once again, as it stands, the cite is practically useless to the average reader.SammytheSeal (talk) 07:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This has very little to do with this article, and more to do with citations in general. The fact is, peer reviewed journals are the most reliable sources out there, and they are very rarely available for free on the internet.  You're welcome to find a resource that can be accessed for free on the article and add it.  Djk3 (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't checked out the sentence or reference in detail, but it is completely true that peer reviewed journals are very good citations. Sure, not everyone can read them, but that's a downside we have to live with when using good sources.  - Enuja (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact is, peer reviewed journals are the most reliable sources out there, and they are very rarely available for free on the internet. I´m not arguing with that at all. Peer reviewed journals are also rarely accessable to the general population as well ( though If I drove 120 miles each way I could probably access it myself ) It just seems paradoxical that a " free encyclopedia" uses hard to access, non-free references / cites - any kid reading that cite is going to wonder what wilbur the pig has to do with it all but whatever ;) I´ll replace it with a free reference if and when I uncover one if there is no objection. SammytheSeal (talk) 05:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * http://www.cbe.wwu.edu/dunn/rprnts.zuckermansdilemma.pdf appears to be the article in question. I'm not sure if it would be appropriate to link that though as the citation given that it probably is copyright of the journal it came from. --Albert.white (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The sharpest point of debate over whaling today... is conservation?
"The sharpest point of debate over whaling today concerns the conservation status of hunted species."

I don't agree with this statement at all. I believe ethics is the "sharpest point of debate." How could sustainability be the sharpest point of debate when its not the biggest issue? I mean, can anyone here for a fact say that the majority of whaling today is unsustainable? Or that a species or population is threatened due to hunting alone (re. J stock of minke whales in the western North Pacific)? Or even that a small portion of whaling today is unsustainable? I have never heard legitimate arguments (an exception being perhaps the future (possible) exploitation of humpbacks south of Australia and Oceania) from environmental groups about whaling being unsustainable, only that it is "cruel and inhumane" because whales "feel pain" etc. Or they use the supposed intelligence (which I see little of) of whales as an argument against hunting them.

I propose rewording it. Perhaps it should say "The sharpest point of debate over whaling today is the cruelty involved in the hunt." Yes/No? If no one replies in a week, I'll be changing it to the above sentence, or something similar. Jonas Poole (talk) 02:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Jonas, I totally agree with you that the environmental groups' claims vis-a-vis sustainability are illegitimate, however I would argue that (for what it's worth) they do in fact make them fairly regularly. Whenever I debate with anti-whalers (on various locations online) one of the first things they will bring up is how they 'don't want their grandchildren not to be able to see a whale' etc. Which leads me to believe that the groups they get their 'information' from are pushing that line.
 * Like I say, I'm not exactly sure what the upshot of this actually is: does the fact that completely false claims are made regularly make it the 'sharpest point of debate'? And of course there is the issue as to whether ethical concerns are in fact more often cited by anti-whalers -- in my experience they are certainly right up there, a close second if not the most-often given reason by anti-whalers for opposing whaling. (And given that they're not complete bunk, there would appear to be some room for genuine debate).
 * So I guess I'm saying it depends on the definition of 'sharpest point of debate': if it means 'the most-cited reason for opposing whaling' (regardless of whether it's a completely invalid reason), I'd argue that there might be some justification for saying it's the conservation issue, BUT if it means 'the ACTUAL stickiest point of debate on the issue', I'd say it would have to be the ethical issues. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I did forget about those Greenpeace (at least I think they were from Greenpeace) ads about how if they didn't stop Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean humpback whales would disappear, or something along those lines. When speaking to laymen (not saying I'm an expert, but I wouldn't call myself a layman either), though, I do remember often hearing them say, when speaking of why they were against whaling, that they didn't want whales to disappear, but then again it was more of an assumption they had because of historical whaling, and not of whaling today, which I doubt they knew much about. I mean, how many people in Australia, the US or UK could give you a detailed answer as to why they think whaling is unsustainable? Not very many.
 * I was refering to specifically environmental groups when I proposed the edit above. Perhaps I should have thought more broadly and included all individuals who were anti-whaling, even the many who don't have a clue as to whether its sustainable or not. Jonas Poole (talk) 01:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Jonas... Yeah, I don't think it's just Greenpeace, either, who are making misleading statements vis-a-vis the sustainability issues (I say 'misleading' because eg they'll give population figures for blue whales, or Northern right whales or whatever, as an argument against hunting minkes).
 * So I'm not at all convinced that it's just uninformed *individuals* making bogus sustainability claims. My own feeling is that the relevant groups sense that if they were JUST campaigning on cruelty issues, the support for their stance would drop (and I think they are correct in that assumption), so they play up the sustainability claims as much as they possibly can without lying outright. However, I haven't studied the issue in any detail.
 * Anyway, to return to the original issue, I agree with you that the statement "The sharpest point of debate over whaling today concerns the conservation status of hunted species" IS problematic, because a) I don't know how it can be definitely ascertained whether the sustainability issue OR the cruelty issue is 'the (single) sharpest point of debate', and b) there is the issue I raised earlier of whether 'the sharpest point of debate' means *the point which results in the most actual dispute* -- regardless of whether the dispute is completely wrong-headed -- OR if it means *the most morally difficult/complex/intractable point of debate* (perhaps I'm splitting hairs a little in making that point, but I think it's at least somewhat relevant).
 * So I'd suggest, a) we include BOTH the cruelty and the sustainability issues as the 'TWO main (or sharpest, or whatever) points of debate', as I think that's fairly uncontroversially true -- you do get other arguments from anti-whalers, but they're always down the list from those two -- and b) less important, but maybe think about exactly what we mean by 'sharpest points of debate', and possibly spell it out a bit more. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, further to this, I've gone ahead and deleted the troublesome sentence, as I can't see how it can be justified. There's no way we can say with confidence that conservation status is indeed 'the sharpest point of debate'. Hope that's cool. Jonathanmills (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

my edits (safety of eating whale meat)
Hi all,

Just wanted to introduce myself after making so many edits!

I'm certainly not here to be disruptive and I realise this is a controversial topic, but I believe the facts are as I have suggested. (People who don't believe that might want to check out the (US) EPA (Environmental Protection Agency - government body) report -- http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:zuaCnizYixwJ:www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/presentations/exposures.ppt -- and the advice of the relevant official bodies in Iceland: http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:cg0t6SRijYAJ:ust.is/media/fraedsluefni/hrefnukjot_ofl_f_barnshafandi-a_ensku.doc

(sorry for the terrible links! it's the best I could do at the mo)

It also appears to me that the anti-whaling lobby regularly conflates the issue of eating whale *meat* with that of eating the *blubber*, when the two are apparently quite distinct in terms of safety (blubber has a far higher concentration of toxins). I'm just wondering if the same has happened in the paragraph in the article, as it talks about 'whale meat products'... I think it would be worthwhile to make this distinction explicit.

Finally, I deleted half of the last sentence, as I think it's a fudge to point out that whale meat has characteristics in common with *all* types of meat (it's redundant information). However, I also think the sentence now looks a little threadbare there by itself, so I wonder if it should be deleted entirely. On the other hand, I think it does serve a purpose, as some in the anti-whaling crowd have gone as far as to make the ludicrous charge that whale meat is nutritionally 'junk food'! Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Anti-whaling groups say...but are they right?
Hi all,

I just wanted to take issue with the following, unsourced statement in the article:

"Anti-whaling groups say this method of killing [explosive harpoon] is cruel, particularly if carried out by inexperienced gunners, because a whale can take several minutes OR EVEN HOURS to die." (my emphasis)

I have no doubt anti-whaling groups make that claim, but I also strongly doubt the claim. Having looked into the topic, official Japanese and Norwegian kill times are between 2 and 3 minutes, and the LONGEST death time in recent years was 14 minutes (this made the newspapers specifically in anti-whaling countries).

I don't think for a second we (Wikipedia) should be reporting the statements of anti-whaling groups when they're clearly wrong...

I'm writing this just to see if anyone corrects me or has any other info, but if I don't hear back (no rush or anything, I'll give it a week at least) I am definitely going to delete that statement.

Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Jonathanmills, I've just add a tag, that's all that's needed for now. Whether they are right or not does not matter, it's whether they claim it that needs the source. The same goes for what the Japanese say. It's not up to us contributors to wikipedia to decide who is wrong or right; if anti-whaling groups say up to hours and the whalers say minutes then its fine to mention that. --Albert.white (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Albert,
 * I can see your point, in the main... however, I think the wording: Anti-whaling groups say this method of killing is cruel, particularly if carried out by inexperienced gunners, because a whale can take several minutes or even hours to die suggests that it is indeed a fact that the whale can take 'several hours' to die (looking at it, I think it's due to the word 'because').
 * I'll definitely add a sentence about the official statistics when I get around to it.. But are you saying there's no issue here beyond that? I mean, is Wikipedia really just supposed to present completely unsubstantiated claims (which are totally at variance with all relevant evidence) without comment?
 * (I'm not trying to sound combative, BTW -- genuinely asking the question). I know WP is about 'presenting controversies' and not judging them, and I like and respect that principle, but I'm just wondering if this is a 'bridge too far' in that regard.
 * Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 03:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding this line " Anti-whaling groups say this method of killing [explosive harpoon] is cruel, particularly if carried out by inexperienced gunners " There are NO inexperienced gunners on Norwegian whaling boats - all gunners have to apply for ( and pass ) yearly gunnery tests in order to be able to qualify for their licence ( at their own expense I might add ) .... This is not to say that they have a 100% average at hitting the whale at exactly the right spot 100% of the time ( 80% according to observer statistics ) it´s basically a fudge line from AW groups SammytheSeal (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Quite right. I hadn't picked that up, even though I did basically know that information. Shall we add your info on how there ARE no inexperienced Norwegian gunners, Sammy, or delete the claim itself, do you think? Jonathanmills (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, I´d add the info ( actually, I know I did before - must´ve been removed at some point ) i´s a simple counterpoint to AW group claims, so it´s presenting both sides. I have no info for Japanese gunners but i would bet that it´s a similar situation there. I would like to see a study on how many minkies are not killed instantly from Japanese whalers in the Southern ocean when  NGO protesters are trying to screw with the gunners aim and compare that to TTD rates when no NGO boats are present... would be an interesting study indeed SammytheSeal (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(reverse indent) That SUCKS that someone removed the info!

As for the Japanese whalers, the figure for instantaneous kills IS actually significantly lower (it's only 40% as opposed to the Norwegians' 80%) -- this is because their scientific-research programme necessitates avoiding head shots (they use the inside of the ear to determine the whale's age, so need it intact).

Of course, I've pointed out to AW'ers many times before that the reason the Japanese are forced into conducting research whaling rather than regular commercial whaling is of course the (basically illegal) intransigience of anti-whaling countries! ;-)

Actually, this is all good info to be in the article. Just need to find the proper references. Jonathanmills (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What about a subsection on TTD numbers outside the Arguments... section? The reason I'm suggesting this is that the Arguments... section is an overgrown mess that invites to POV edits. Conservation status, for example, would be an interesting subsection in itself. I think this article would be a lot better if we were able to present the facts without all the "these people claim this and those people claim that, but in reality it is a fact that...", etc. What do you think? Matt77 (talk) 08:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Here´s some reference details from IWC 60 ;) SammytheSeal (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I had a quick look through the IWC 2007 and 2008 docs, and it seems that TTD rates are availiable for the Norwegian, Greenland and Russian hunt. For the American hunt, only struck-and-lost rates are availiable. I couldn't find anything for the Icelandic and Japanese hunt. But I might have overlooked something, or numbers might be available in previous years documents. Matt77 (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Matt,

I don't think there should be a section about TTD outside of the 'arguments' section, because I don't really see how it is relevant to whaling EXCEPT as it bears on arguments for and against it.
 * I respectfully disagree with you. Welfare issues are relevant to whaling, not only as pro/anti arguments, but is part of the work done by scientists working with IWC and NAMMCO. And with the IWC documents, we have quite a bit of facts (as opposed to opinions) on the subject. Conservation status is an even better example, that certainly is an interesting subtopic in itself, don't you think? Matt77 (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

As for the 'these people claim this, those people claim that' format, I know what you mean that it can be a little tedious at times, but as far as I can see it's pretty much the only way (and the recommended one) to deal with controversial topics on Wikipedia. Jonathanmills (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Mayhaps. Still, I think the one of the latest entries illustrates the problem well: WSPA comparing the killing of whales with slaughtering guidelines of domestic animals, and presenting it as a "study". Completely inappropriate, still, it is an anti-whaling argument, so we are somehow required to accept its inclusion. It seems like anything can be included as long as you can reference an activist. I just fear that the 'arguments' will grow completely out of control, it is already roughly half of the article, which is far too much IMHO. Matt77 (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi,having just read through the report linked, page 3 was certainly interesting with " Although not written with marine mammal hunts specifically in mind, as a minimum humane standard agreed by the OIE,these guidelines represent an extremely valuable benchmark against which to consider the welfare aspects of whaling."
 * The rest is fudge i would say. Its comparing apples and oranges, by comparing slaughterhouse standards to wild hunting standards on land - and has nothing to do with marine mammal hunts at sea. I´m a bit busy just now but when I have the time, Im going to do a major rewite of chunks of the article and lump NGO AW and Pro Arguements into their own article - as it is, the article is way too big (again ) SammytheSeal (talk) 04:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Rereading your post matt, I don´t believe the WSPA report is an anti whaling arguement at all, merely an attempt to fudge the facts - comparing apples to oranges as with slaughterhouse standards and comparing apples to pears with marine mammal hunts and SH standards - compare land hunts with marine mammal hunts and you have a degree of similarity - apples to apples ( albeit different sorts  :) ) I wonder personally if a certain Ms. Bass of the EIA wrote it - it certainly follows her style SammytheSeal (talk) 05:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi guys,
 * Yeah, I can see your point about things getting out of control Matt. However, as long as we're only referencing the latest AW stuff, deleting previous material as we go, that should hopefully take care of it... maybe?
 * Sammy, yeah, I thought there used to be a whole article on 'the arguments for and against whaling'... what happened with that? Or is it a figment of my imagination? Jonathanmills (talk) 09:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Jonathan - must have been a drive through edit that nobody noticed - i´ll get on it soon... thnx for the last edit - looks much better reworded / restructured ;) need to learn how to do that lol .. busy watching the almost total eclipse of the sun at 76N .. light cloud cover so its ideal for watching and photographing ..woot ;) SammytheSeal (talk) 09:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Pictures at top of page
Hi all,

I didn't mean to annoy anyone or take too bold a step in deleting that picture (the one that was at the top of the article) but as someone pointed out, it's not even really a proper picture of whaling, rather a scientific expedition which landed a whale.

It does look a little threadbare now, though, so I was thinking it could be good to maybe have three pictures, one of ancient whaling (ie as old as we can find), one of old whaling (a century or two ago -- and the picture currently up there would do nicely in that regard) and then one of modern-day whaling (a Norwegian/Icelandic or Japanese whaling ship).

Any thoughts? I'm not planning to do anything about this right away (I've never inserted a picture before as I'm not sure about the whole copyright thing -- also I'm not sure how to do it, although that is less of an issue) so if anyone thinks this is a good idea and wants to take it upon themselves, I'd be more than happy. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 10:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I've just enlarged the picture that's currently up there to combat the 'threadbare' issue, however if we're going to have three pictures it would probably be better to have them at around the size of what it was originally, I imagine (which was 250px). Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 10:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

category rethink
Hi guys,

I've just made a somewhat fundamental (although not immediately obvious) change to the way the page is categorised, as I think in its previous state this article focuses inappropriately (given its title) on modern whaling -- and also the IWC moratorium, although that's another issue (I'm not saying the IWC moratorium shouldn't be mentioned, as it is an important modern issue, but rather that it be mentioned at or near the bottom of each country's information rather than at the top).

Anyway, I just wanted to see if anyone else had any feedback on this issue, as I'm now wondering if another sub-article might not be worthwhile containing the modern whaling countries and what's going on with them (which is essentially what we have at the moment), as I think it could well be a topic of some specific interest.

Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Animal Rights Subsection
In the sentence, "The widely accepted notion[55] that whales are sentient is thought to be reason enough not to harm or exploit them in any way," the source for the "widely accepted notion" statement is sourced to a relatively extreme anti-hunting website that uses a few select quotes in an argument against using lab mice. It is hardly what one would refer to as a reputable source. The site is stating that ALL animals are sentient, not just whales.

I am going to do a few edits to make it a less authoritative-sounding statement, and to reflect that it is in essence an opinion from a small group of people.nf utvol (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It sounds like the reference needs changing, but I'm not entirely sure with what we're left with now. I don't think it's a far-out animal-rights position to claim that mammals (at least) are *sentient*. Using a Google search (ie 'define: sentient') there is something of a range of definitions, but many settle on 'the ability to feel pain'. Jonathanmills (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose it comes down to the difference between sentience and sapience. I suppose we must assume that they do mean the true definition of sentience, but then again, it seems as though they mean sapience when they say sentience.
 * Perhaps we should just remove the section altogether or combine it elsewhere, considering that it is so small, and abolitionism is representative of a relatively small section of even the animal rights lobby. Also, it can be assumed that they would be anti-whaling since they are against the use of all animal products that are obtained through the death of the animal. nf utvol (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree the entire abolitionist perspective section should be deleted. This is an article on whaling. While the abolitionist perspective informs some of the opposition to whaling, it is by no means exclusive to whales and whaling as mentioned in the above comment. I'd have no problem if it was worked into the text elsewhere, but it doesn't make sense as its' own section in this article. I'd confidently delete it right now, but I'll defer to others who have done the bulk of the work on this article. If there's a good case to be made for keeping it as its' own segment (presently the concluding segment of the entire article),I'd be interested to hear it. It seems more appropriate to a whale specific sub-section of an animal rights entry, or possibly an 'anti-whaling' (or some such term) section could be created on this page summarizing the range of opposing perspectives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.51.133.246 (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm... not entirely sure. I can sort of see the relevance, as the article does seem to be listing the various arguments against whaling... However Nfutvol makes a good point that 'it can be assumed that they would be anti-whaling since they are against the use of all animal products that are obtained through the death of an animal', so is arguably redundant info.
 * So... I really haven't contributed anything to this discussion! ;-) Anyone else? Jonathanmills (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, having just re-read (or rather looked over) the article section, I'd be mildly inclined to leave it in, as the main heading is 'The arguments for and against whaling', and this is indeed an argument against whaling (even if it is an argument against all other types of animal exploitation). Also, it's very small and concise, so I can't really see the problem with it..? Jonathanmills (talk) 23:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * One other issue here is that I thought there was a major change in the offing regarding the article structure, lifting this entire section (pro- v anti-whaling) somewhere else. Not sure what's going on with that though. Jonathanmills (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well...I can see your reasoning for keeping it; for some reason I missed the fact that it came at the end of the 'opposition to whaling' sub-section. Although, I'd argue that my mistake is at the heart of the reason why it ought to be deleted: basically, it doesn't connect well to the preceding points of opposition. Each preceding point is specific to whaling (fisheries, pollutants, sustainability, etc.), while the abolitionist point is markedly non-specific. It's not at all critical to me whether it stays or goes, but I would add that once we enter into the realm of philosophical/dogmatic reasons against whaling, we've stepped into a territory that requires the inclusion of a bunch of perspectives: those who feel whales are 'especially special' animals ('cetaphiles'?), the fringe who feels they are telepathic emissaries, and worse. It gets difficult to know when to draw the line. Perhaps the whole thing can be addressed by re-titling the sub-heading 'philosophical objections to whaling' or something like that, creating room for the inclusion of a bunch of perspectives, without particularily privileging the abolitionist perspective. As it stands, it kind of reads as though this is the only such objection to whaling. Not nearly as big a deal as my word count on the topic would indicate, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.51.133.246 (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, to what extent does the view in this section overlap with (or derive) from views related to whales' intelligence (already treated in separate section)? Mondeo (talk) 21:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Noticed someone changed the title for this section to 'Sentient'...I've gone ahead and changed it again, to 'Philosophical'. Sentience is already addressed under 'Intelligence', and I think 'philosophical' covers the abolitionist perspective as well as leaving room to include others. I'm loathe to make the change, though, as others have done the bulk of the work here, but the heading 'Sentient' didn't seem to fit. If you want to change it back to the original heading, go for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.51.133.246 (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure about this. According to Wikipedia sentient refers to the ability to suffer (feel pain), perhaps this should be merged with the section on intelligence as some form of intelligence is required to feel pain. Or perhaps the view intelligence is irrelevant? Indeed, the arguments related to intelligence can also be classified as philosophical. Mondeo (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the intelligence section should be merged under the 'philosophical' heading? Citing intelligence as evidence against whaling is certainly a philosophical argument, as Mondeo notes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.51.133.246 (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

the problem with that is they are intelligent, which deserves its own section. its not just extreme groups that say it. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Major rewrite ?
Before I get stuck into this, I´d appreciate some opinions. As it stands, large swathes of the article have little to do with the subject of Whaling itself, more to do with animal rights, controversy over moral and political aspects of whaling and out and out propaganda arguements from both sides of the debate. I propose to edit the article severly - and link to a new section/article titled moral and political aspects of the whaling debate. ( open to other suggestions ;) ) Other than a brief descrption of the fact that there is considerable debate surrounding whaling, I´d move and edit a lot to the new article section. I´d move most of section 4 as well as edit drastically the refernces and links( which frankly looks ridiculous as to the number of pro and anti links to the same info ) I´ll copy the text and work offwiki on it and edit in one lump once done. Any comments and suggestions or opinions welcome please SammytheSeal (talk) 10:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good on the whole Sammy; I think you've identified a major flaw in the article (that it really doesn't tell us much about *whaling*!)
 * I'd possibly recommend the new sub-article still be called 'the arguments for and against whaling', however, as I'm not sure they are all either moral or political.. (eg the argument regarding numbers and sustainability..?) Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. I disagree about creating a new "pro/anti" article. I don't think the section is excessive. And moving it out wont create more content on the act of whaling itself. What would be better is if the by-country analysis was cut down to a couple of paragraphs for ALL countries, especially as there are already whole articles on many countries' whaling activity with much duplicated content. —Pengo 23:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sammy. The pro/anti section is bloated. As it stands, this article is more about the politics of whaling than whaling. As for name, "Whaling controversy" or "The whaling debate" are my suggestions. Keep it simple :) Matt77 (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinions/suggestions folks. The Whaling debate sounds tickety boo to me, I´ll add to it under poltics, NGO´s, etc etc. I´m pretty much done wih the off wiki edit - just need to copyedit the "new" article. Once thats done I´ll get to work- I imagine i´ll need some help with tables etc- so feel free to leap in and restructure both when I get into trouble ( as I´m sure I will lol ). I´ve half done additions to methods ( how modern whaling is done today ) and I´ll add that as I go on, particularly from the norwegian perspective. cheers SammytheSeal (talk) 04:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Pengo, I respectfuly disagree. Most of the lower half of the page has little to do with whaling per se, its politics and POV´s ...SammytheSeal (talk) 05:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * While I agree (I think!) with Matt and Sammy in the main here, I would slightly dispute the idea that 'the politics of whaling' somehow don't belong in an article about 'whaling'. In the end, the politics of whaling ARE a significant aspect of the topic of whaling nowadays, and so deserve inclusion (IMHO). Jonathanmills (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi again - There will be a short summary identifying the fact that whaling is a controversial subject, from a political perspective as well as a conservation and moral perspective. The link to the new page will be above that summary. Feel free to edit it mercilessly once its done ( I expect no less lol ). However, you can´t have a detailed explanation of the politics and the "gaming " within the IWC without getting way sidetracked and adding all of the NGO stuff/ arguements that are presently there ( thats how it got there in the first place - and its why the damn article is so bloated - I have a fair bit to add to the article once I´ve got the edit(s) done - about whaling itself - to be frank, I have´nt added it before simply because I know that it´ll make a bloated article even more bloated. I see no problem with a seperate page adressing all of the above aspects in detail linked prominently from the main whaling page as long as a "short" summary is present - but tbh, I´m not going to get into an edit war over it - if I thought large chunks of the political and NGO arguements were going to be put back into the main page I would´nt bother in the first place - life is too short  ;)SammytheSeal (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops ... forgot to add that 99% of the politics surrounding whaling belong in the IWC article anyway - not in the whaling ( IMNSHO ;) SammytheSeal (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * However, the article is way over the recommended length, largely due to the politics and ethical argument section. Forking these sections is in accordance to the guidelines, IMO. Vapour (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Poole edits
User:Jonas Poole -- Your edits seem to be informed by your understanding of the truth of the matter, rather than whether the questioned sentences are supported by verified citations:
 * (cur) (last) 02:53, 22 August 2008 User:Jonas Poole  (→Norway-An opinion piece is not a reliable source) (undo)
 * (cur) (last) 02:39, 22 August 2008 User:Jonas Poole (→Japan-Unreliable source. Provide a better one please.) (undo)
 * (cur) (last) 02:33, 22 August 2008 User:Jonas Poole (→History of whaling-Perhaps you should have added that the Japanese are largely responsible for the depletion of blue, humpback, gray, fin, and other species of whales in their waters?) (undo)

With all due respect, I must say a priori that the references to 8th century Japanese literature are not diminished in their relevance because you reasonably question the reliability of that feature article in the Melbourne Age. You make me regret having adding this citation. Do you see my point? I would have thought another approach would have been better in this narrow context. Your personal POV may affect your close scrutiny of other aspects of this article, but I would have thought the 8th century references should have remained undisturbed -- or at worst, you might have attached a "needs citation tag." I myself didn't notice any reference to whales the last time I looked at the Kojiki or at Man'yōshū, but I would not have thought that removing any mention of these classic sources was the best of all possible options.

In my view, the BBC reference mandates a quite different treatment of the anecdote about Shinran Shonin in this historical aspect of the "whaling" article. I'm persuaded you were quite wrong to delete this particular paragraph. Also, the paragraph about group hunting stands on a different basis.

It seems to me that these rational arguments come to naught in light of what you have done. You've substituted text with no in-line citations for text with clear, precise, accurate (but plausibly insufficient) in-line citations. That makes sense only if you are making this edit with a specific POV in mind ... but, in any case, it just doesn't make sense for zero citations to be substituted for any citation whatsoever (even questionable citations) -- even the suspect Melbourne Age citation is better than nothing at all. Do you see my point? No doubt your study of 70+ books has informed your edit, but without citations which explain your edits to any curious reader, I'm afraid that your edits appear to be based on naught but "original research." Again, I can but ask: Do you see my point?

For these reasons, I feel justified in restoring the BBC-supported paragraph and the one about 17th century developments in whale hunting in Japan. When I have located credible support for that paragraph about 8th century poetry and Emperor Jimmu, I will feel justified in restoring that paragraph as well. I would not expect you to delete these paragraphs casually.

Please note that I make no attempt to address the controversial whaling activities of Japanese-flagged ships in the 21st century. In this context, I must tell you that your edit summary note is misplaced. You wrote: "Perhaps you should have added that the Japanese are largely responsible for the depletion of blue, humpback, gray, fin, and other speices of whales in their waters?" The accuracy of this statement is not disputed; but the fact-of-the-matter is that it is not relevant in paragraphs which focus only on pre-17th century whaling in Japanese waters. While your statement might be entirely accurate in relation to the 20th century -- I myself don't know ..., it is inapposite in this quite separate context.

As I parse the issues I identify as relevant, this presents no opportunity for an extended dispute. I only a hope that we can get beyond what I am inclined to construe as a minor misunderstanding. --Tenmei (talk) 08:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Jonas Poole -- I made a mistake in trying to copy and paste two paragraphs from an old page to the current one. Inadvertently, I blanked out your three edits.  I should have copied the relevant text and then clicked on "cancel."  Instead, I think I clicked on "save page."  There must be a way to restore this wrongly deleted edit history; but I'll have to ask for help in repairing my error.  I can't follow up right now, but I do plan to re-visit this problem later today.  Sorry. --Tenmei (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I had a further thought: WikiProject Cetaceans could be re-evaluating the thrust of the historic section of this article? The Dutch Wikipedia counterpart of this article -- Walvisvaart -- focuses primarily on modern whaling issues; and my contributions here, if translated into Dutch, would be unwelcome in that context. In our context here, I wonder if the WP:V reasoning above is a little off-the-mark in the terms you had in mind when you removed what I had contributed?  Let's work through this .... --Tenmei (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Norwegian whaling
Small whales? What does this mean? The hunting of ziphiids? Doubtful. The hunting of dolphins/porpoises? Most likely. Therefore it does not fall under the definition of whaling, which is the hunting of great whales, not dolphins or porpoises. The statement removed will remain removed as it does not refer to actual whaling. Jonas Poole (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Jonas Poole -- No need to shout here. Despite the clear evidence of your own eyes, I did understand and accept your objection to that article from Nippon Keizai Shinbun -- the defects were obvious as soon as you pointed them out; however, this text was unwittingly restored when I tried to copy only the three archived paragraphs about Japanese whaling ..., and then when I wrongly clicked on "save page" rather than "cancel," the entire article was reverted to a version prior to your initial deletion. This misunderstanding was entirely my fault. How were you to know otherwise?  Sorry. --Tenmei (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I know the above discussion is from 2008, and this may well have been discussed and dealt with before but the hunting of certain small whales is regulated by the IWC, if that's the definition being applied here in this article. There often also appears to be some confusion about the phrase 'small-type whaling' as often used to describe modern commercial operations.
 * The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, 1946 Schedule 1.c. states, ‘“small-type whaling” means catching operations using powered vessels with mounted harpoon guns hunting exclusively for minke, bottlenose, beaked, pilot or killer whales.’
 * Norwegian authors note the wider definition applied by Norwegian whalers over the years
 * Jonsgård, writing in 1955 states in his introduction to his paper ‘Development of the modern Norwegian small Whale Industry’,
 * ‘Small whale is the usual Norwegian designation for small whale species. It is difficult to define the term exactly, but no great error is committed in stating that all species of whale which, fully grown, are less than 12 metres in length, belong to the small whale species. This means that of the approximately 65 existing species of toothed whales, all with the exception of one species – the sperm whale or cachalot (Physeter catadon) – will be classified as small whales. Regarding the 10 species of baleen whales, however the position is otherwise. Of these only two species – the little piked whale (Balaenoptera acuto-rostra) and the pigmy right whale (Neobalaena marginata) – can be designated small whales.’
 * Jonsgård, Å., (1955) ‘Development of the modern Norwegian small whale Industry’, The Norwegian Whaling Gazette No. 12 pages 697-718 In Norwegian and English
 * Polarbearzombie (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Japanese whaling
You gave a reference to "whale-hunting" in some poem. What species was taken? Does it refer to the great whales, or some species of small cetacean. Was it opportunistic, subsistence, or commercial? Can't say. Organized shore whaling (the hunting of the great whales) did not begin until the 1570s (See Encycopedia of Marine Mammals, Kasuya (2002). Some vague reference in a poem is not strong evidence of whaling. Nor is the mention of eating whales. Unless it specifically states that a whale (not a dolphin, porpoise, etc) was caught for subsistence reasons, commercial, or what have you, it is not evidence of whaling (with few exceptions; for example, large amount of oil/meat produced/obtained regularly, etc). Jonas Poole (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Jonas Poole -- I need a little time to think about this. My first blush response is to dismiss the plain, clear and compelling logic as irrelevant, but that course of action leads nowhere beyond status quo ante. Assuming arguendo your words above as a proposition to be debated, I'm equally uncomfortable arguing pro- or con- because my competing sets of arguments address issues at cross purposes. It's a puzzlement for me just now.


 * I regret discovering that I can so readily come up with a plausible anti-Kojiki and anti-Man'yōshū arguing point:
 * The Japan Whaling Association website includes a "Chronology of Whaling" which presents it initial identification of Japanese whaling commencing in the 12th century -- which is later than either of the cited literary "proofs" of early whaling:
 * 9th Century -- Whaling starts in Norway, France, and Spain
 * 12th Century -- Hand-harpoon whaling starts in Japan
 * 1606 -- Hand-harpooning whaling by organized groups starts in Taiji, Japan
 * Let me ponder this a bit more. --Tenmei (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't consider the Japan Whaling Association website a reliable source on whaling history. Far from it. All it says is whaling supposedly began in the 12th century. Is this in reference to small cetaceans, mysticetes, etc? It doesn't say. Find a reliable published source that states that whaling (not dolphin or porpoise hunting) began in the 12th century. Jonas Poole (talk) 01:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Jonas Poole, you reverted the deletion of the following unsourced, broad and vague claim:
 * "The Japanese are amongst those countries that are primarily responsible for the depletion of blue, fin, sei, bryde's, J-stock minke, humpback, and other species of whale in the western North Pacific. They are also largely responsible for the western gray whale's critically endangered status."

I will ask to have it removed again soon if there is no evidence to support this claim. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 08:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced claim moved here for reference and further research:
 * "Japan is amongst those countries that are primarily responsible for the depletion of blue, fin, sei, bryde's, J-stock minke, humpback, and other species of whale in the western North Pacific. They are also largely responsible for the western gray whale's critically endangered status."

Regards, Mondeo (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

English, French, German whaling
Jonas Poole -- You deleted references here. Was your concern related to the facts asserted or the source citation or something else? Your edit summary left me uncertain about your reasoning. You note: I was not expressing a personal view -- rather, I was only making the limited contribution of those assertions-of-fact which were published in the cited source. --Tenmei (talk) 01:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * →History of whaling-Perhaps you should have added that the Japanese are largely responsible for the depletion of blue, humpback, gray, fin, and other speices of whales in their waters?)


 * As this was perceived to unbalance the article's presentation, the text and citation were removed. --Tenmei (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

whaling history in the US
I understand there is a "Whaling in America" page at wikipedia, but there should be something on this page that at least refers to it, given that there is a history section. There is no mention whatsoever here that whaling took place in the US before "modern" times. "Modern" is an ambiguous term in the context of this page. When did historical whaling end and modern whaling begin? Was there ever such a division, and if so, in what sense? (Declair (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC))


 * Agree. I guess it is pretty straightforward to copy the main poins from the main article. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Open-boat ("historical") whaling and modern whaling overlap almost completely, the former from 1059-1980s and the latter from 1864 to the present. Open-boat whaling (commercial open-boat whaling, that is) continued in the Azores until the 1980s, that's why there is such an overlap. If you wanted to include only American open-boat whaling, than the end would have come in the late 1920s. It wasn't until 1891 that modern methods surpassed American open-boat whaling in number of barrels of whale and sperm oil produced annually, and probably not until the following year that it surpassed commerical open-boat whaling as a whole. Jonas Poole (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The question was rhetorical, actually. This is something that should be clarified in the article. The question remains why the very important whaling industry in the United States in the 18th and 19th centuries is missing here. Declair (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Moral Issues in Japan? The passage refers to fish not whales
It now says
 * "As early as the 13th century, records relating to Japanese whaling addressed ethical as well as practical issues. For example, at the Koganji temple in Nagato, Yamaguchi in southern Honshu island, a scroll preserves a story concerning Shinran Shonin, the founder of Jodo Shinshu Buddhism in Japan: "He was in a fishing village in 1207. A fisherman and his wife approached him and told of their worries, saying 'We live on catching fish and eating them and selling them. Would we go to hell after we die?' And Shonin said, 'If you thank them and give proper service to them, praying for the resting in peace of those fish, then there will be no problem at all.'"[14]"

And it is true that even earlier there were buddhist admonitions about eating any kind of meat but this has very little to do with whaling and this passage specificially references fish. What is it doing here?--Timtak (talk) 11:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Setting aside the issue of whether it should be on the page, classifying whales as mammals is a late development relative to the history of whaling; even Moby Dick, if I am not mistaken, includes sailors referring to whales as fish. Anarchangel (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

What does this mean?
From the first line of the article:

"Whaling is the hunting of a whale and they are illigiles that dates back to at least 6,000 BC."

What exactly does this mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.115.3 (talk) 02:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)