Talk:Whaling in Japan

Organized Whaling section neutrality
Checking the section in question, it looks like the wording is very loaded such as

Domestically, Japanese people have been trying to shift responsibility of whale declines to whaling by other nations for hundreds of years to even today, and claim that their whaling have been completely different to that by other nations.[1] Claiming that their whaling were unlike brutal hunts by foreigners, but being humble and emotional, and Japanese people use all the parts of whale bodies unlike westerners who hunt whales only for oils, and Japanese strictly controlled catch quotas for sake of whales, and they never hunted juveniles and cow-calf pairs as their respects to whales. When they kill whales, hunters invoked the Budda and pray for the repose of whales' souls,[1] and they held funerals for whales and built cenotaphs and graves to them, and gave posthumous Buddhist names to the dead whales, or released deceased fetuses back to the sea after incising cows' bellies, and people of Japan were the best in the world about building healthy relationships with whales, being strongly connected with elitism, antiforeignism, and nationalism.[2][3]

Are these quotations or something, and perhaps this section could be reworded? Seems to take a very cynical/hostile tone against Japanese whaling. Perhaps someone could look further into this. ZeroDamagePen (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroDamagePen (talk • contribs) 15:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

✅ Cleaned up the section, tried to remove POV wording, make it more neutral and more accurate, and added another reference. I haven't removed the "Neutrality Disputed" banner, so if you concur with the editing changes I've made, and the tone of neutrality is no longer in dispute, please feel free to remove the banner. - Boneyard90 (talk) 14:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Whalocaust returns to Japan.
The japanese high-seas fleet has decided to resume large scale whaling for the 2016 season, the corresponding article in now on the BBC News website: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34952538 82.131.150.14 (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Pirate Whaling
An editor removed a relevant section of the article that was complete with references while arbitrarily claiming there was no evidence to support what was written. Why were the references ignored and the section removed without any debate?

I put a lot of work into this article and did my best to ensure it wasn't biased but now it seems to have reverted to a state where random contributors are editing out historical facts they don't agree with and failing to justify why the information should not be included in the article.

Cetamata (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I looked through the edits as far back as January 2015 and didn't see your user name. Which edits are you referring to? Can you link them? - Boneyard90 (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The original edits were put in years ago, along with much of the history sections of the article. So, why was that information about pirate whaling arbitrarily removed with no consideration for the references included? Also, if there is a perceived bias in the text that was removed, would a larger range of reference points to confirm the information be satisfactory for including it in the article? This article is one of those subjects where someone is always offended which is why I stayed away from the opposition portions and stuck mostly to researching history. I can rewrite that piece and expand on it now that I have some time for wiki editing again. Cetamata (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If you look at the history tab of this article, you can go back in time to your edits way back when. Copy and paste them here so we have an idea of what the issue was, and update the references if needed. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * My apologies. It looks like the data is mostly still there, it's just been altered to get rid of the words 'pirate whaling'. I thought the whole section had been wiped out when I skimmed over the article. Is it just the term 'pirate whaling' that is contentious? For example, the UNEP defines it as "companies that killed whales illegally þ a process known as pirate whaling." Thanks. Cetamata (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe replaced by "illegal" whaling?. Anyway, glad you found the info is still there. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

On accuracy of terms
I believe I (for one) at one time altered the term "pirate whaling", for the following reasons: I hope this has cleared up the modification in wording. - Boneyard90 (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Piracy is a legal term, and furthermore, nobody concerned (i.e. no Japanese whaler) has ever been convicted of "piracy", therefore it would be inaccurate to label Japanese whaling as "pirate whaling".
 * "Pirate whaling" does not exist. See the IMB section of the Piracy page: "The International Maritime Bureau (IMB) defines piracy as: the act of boarding any vessel with an intent to commit theft or any other crime, and with an intent or capacity to use force in furtherance of that act." This term "pirate whaling" is an inaccurate colloquialism that fails the definition.
 * The IWC is not a legislative body; its resolutions are not binding, and not enforceable. There are no penalties for defiance of the resolutions. Therefore, IWC resolutions are not laws, and whaling of any kind is not, and can not be, "illegal".


 * I see what you're saying but unfortunately editing based on a perceived technicality effectively acts as a euphemism in this case.


 * In the literature documenting this history it's referred to as 'pirate whaling'. It's a term in common use.


 * So your position is that the act of a ICRW signatory nation, using foreign entities to hunt additional whales outside of IWC oversight without reporting the catch, when no IWC quota has been agreed on for this catch, cannot be referred to as illegal and not pirate whaling because of your strict interpretation of the word piracy in this case.


 * One already included reference is the United Nations Environment Programme which refers to this as 'pirate whaling' and describes pirate whaling as illegal. However, it doesn't have to be a legal term to be an appropriate term for the subject matter. It is not intended to refer to conflate the whaling with high seas piracy of shipping lanes. It is intended to identify the unregulated take of whales -- which was purposely obscured from the international regulatory authority. Cetamata (talk) 06:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Here is another example from US Government documentation.


 * NOAA Administrator and U.S.Whaling Commissioner Richard A. Frank concerning the 31st meeting of the International Whaling Commission is quoted.


 * At the meeting, Japan also announced it no longer would import whale meat from non-IWC countries. "This could well end pirate whaling activities outside IWC regulations by ships like the Sierra," Frank said.


 * Cetamata (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * First, do not try to downplay the significance of legal terms by alluding to a "perceived technicality". It's not a matter of perception, and it's not a technicality. Piracy is a crime, and it's well defined. Whaling is not a crime ... it's more like internationally frowned on. You also try to exaggerate the importance of the source you link. "Government documentation" makes your source sound like a law or other legal policy, when all you've linked is a newsletter, and a quote by a biased official, who uses the term "pirate whaling" much as you want to use it, a slang term of convenience to dramatize the whaling activity and encourage the view that it's an actual crime, rather than what it is, a discouraged practice. I don't see how the term deserves any significant place in this article, and certainly no place that would grant it the appearance of legitimacy, when all it is is a propaganda term to heighten the drama. - Boneyard90 (talk) 12:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Would 'illegal' or 'pirate whaling' apply to hunting protected species? Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Protected by whom? This isn't like Africa, where there are national laws in place, and park police armed with AK-47s who hunt poachers. The whales are in international waters, therefore can't be protected by any one nation's laws, and there is no law enforcement agency in pursuit of the whalers. Besides, the whalers are acting under the jurisprudence of Japan, a sovereign nation. What the whalers are doing is legal, according to the laws of Japan. So, the terms "illegal" or "pirate whaling" represent one point of view, and their use in this article would set a non-neutral POV tone. - Boneyard90 (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem here is quite obvious. Boneyard90 is injecting his personal opinion, or point of view, into the wiki in substitution for terms in common use and authoritative sources of data on the subject of whaling. This is unfortunately not a new problem for this particular wiki where in the past some editors wished to describe the subject with terms like murder and slaughter and others wished to selectively remove information as if the history of the subject doesn't include any scandals or controversies.


 * Furthermore, statements by International Whaling Commission representatives are part of the historical record concerning Japan's whaling whether you personally agree with them or not. I've now provided two references that are authoritative and relate to the issue directly -- from the United Nations and the government of the United States. There are, of course, many other sources of this information, including history books that also use the term 'Pirate Whaling'. So, are the other editors who maintain this article supposed to use such references, or are they all supposed to ignore Wikipedia policies on WP:NPOV concerning content, like terminology, that they don't personally agree with? Cetamata (talk) 06:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * From the Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, William F. Perrin, Bernd Wursig, J.G.M. 'Hans' Thewissen, Academic Press, Feb 26, 2009, page 1235 -- Illegal whaling occurs in contravention of national laws or internationally agreed quotas, season, area restrictions, and other limitations, whereas "pirate whaling" refers to unregulated whaling conducted outside the aegis of the International Whaling Commission, usually under a flag of convenience. Cetamata (talk) 07:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, when someone wants to be obtuse, there is no way to deal with them. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice. I've been trying to maintain an impartial tone, and keep the article NPOV, a concept User:Cetamata has had issue with in the past concerning this subject, to judge from the user's talk page. But now we have a source. The earlier source was unacceptable because it was relaying POV. Quoting a non-NPOV, even if it is in spuriously described "government documentation" is not acceptable. But if it is in "common use" (one source is rarely enough), then the term may have a place in the article. Adding it under the "History" section gives it undue weight. I suggest adding and describing the term and its implications, in the Controversy section, perhaps under one of the sub-headings. - Boneyard90 (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * First, thank you for recognizing that a source has been provided. However, another source was already provided in the article which you did not recognize when you edited the words pirate whaling out. The history book, Men and Whales, by Richard Ellis, Globe Pequot Press, 1999, even includes a chapter titled Pirate Whaling from pages 450 - 456. This source was already cited in the Wiki prior to the removal of the term "pirate whaling". Please make an attempt to review citations prior to removing text you find objectionable in the future.


 * Second, I respectfully disagree that the information should be removed from the history section due to your personal preferences. I don't think every detail from Ellis and other sources needs to be mentioned. A short paragraph or two summarizing this information (which was already present in the wiki) is appropriate and unbiased in my opinion. However, just because something seems controversial doesn't mean it is being given undue weight according to placement. Pirate whaling caused the International Whaling Commission to change its rules about the importation of whale meat from non-member countries -- and as previously mentioned here at the 31st IWC meeting Japan agreed to not import whale meat from non-members too. This is not an arbitrary argument between activists and whalers about anthropomorphism. It is a historical fact about whaling in Japan. Cetamata (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, at this point I think it's a matter of perspective and placement. If the label "pirate whaling" is applied to the Japanese practice, is it part of the history of whaling in Japan, or is it part of the history of the controversy. Certainly it is not how the Japanese see their whaling practice. They have, in the past, tried to maintain adherence to the rules concerning culling for scientific research. Has the label affected the government's policies, or cultural perceptions? This is supposed to be a history of whaling in Japan, not a history of the debate outside of Japan, nor a history of the protests outside of Japan. I think our current disagreement stems partly with the difficulty in recognizing this distinction, and thus which aspect of the article the inclusion of the term is most relevant. But the distinction between the history of whaling in Japan and the history of the controversy outside Japan, and what effect it has had on one rather than the other, is why I feel it is more appropriate, and more relevant, in the controversy section. - Boneyard90 (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The debate is still crossing into WP:NPOV territory. The Wiki is not to be written from the perspective of Japanese whalers or from the perspective of anti-whaling activists. So how Japanese people might perceive this is not really the subject matter. That is merely a particular point of view. Pirate whaling, in this historical context, was a form of unregulated whaling that Japan's fisheries participated in. Therefore it is relevant to the Whaling in Japan wiki. Yes, it is controversial because this was done without informing the IWC but sometimes historical facts are considered controversial. The participation in pirate whaling was entirely commercial and also occurred long before the research whaling programs were created, by the way. Rather than attempting to shape a narrative that promotes a POV like "[they] always tried to maintain adherence to the rules" (which is factually incorrect), why can't historical details simply be recounted as they happened in brief summary? Cetamata (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to write from the perspective of the Japanese whalers. I am saying that the history of whaling in Japan should be exactly that. The label "pirate whaling" is an external label, and should be added to the section on external views of Japanese whaling. Can you link the original text? I'd rather not have to scroll back looking for it. Boneyard90 (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

you wrote:

I'm sorry, but your entire statement is 100% false, for you have completely disregarded international law and international treaties. I would invite you to look into the official ruling of the International Court of Justice (the primary judicial branch of the United Nations, of which Japan is a member, bound to abide by its rules). Japan is party to international treaties which prohibit these activities in international waters, so the sovereignty of Japan is of no consequence here. The prohibited harvest of a protected species is poaching by its very definition. "Pirate whaling" is a thing that has been described in documents dating back at least to 1954, if not earlier.

Additionally, your premise that the topic of this article should be restricted to discussion of whaling in Japan and only in Japan doesn't hold water (no pun intended), for the article Whaling in the United States discusses excursions to the South Pacific; History of Basque whaling discusses activities well outside of the Basque region; and the list goes on and on.

I believe that the consensus of the editors on this page is clearly not in agreement with your theories as presented. — groll tech  ( talk ) 18:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You have made several misinterpretations in your comment. I conceded in a previous comment that "pirate whaling" may be a legitimate concept when a second source was presented. At first, the editor only presented one source, and it was POV. However, just because it is "a thing", does not make it a legal thing. And your link has only shown its popularity, not its legal validity. It is comparable to poaching, but not the same. There are no legal penalties against the Japanese, either the government or individual whalers, for engaging in whaling activities. If so, then show me. Who has been charged? When did any nation's Naval vessels engage and apprehend the Japanese whaling fleet? They haven't.
 * I am aware of the UCJ ruling; and Japan said it would abide by the ruling on one of its scientific programs (JARPA II), but is going ahead with another scientific program. Furthermore, the ICJ ruling concerned only the hunts in the Antarctic. The ICJ did not rule on Pacific whaling operations. See here. The ICJ ruling is quite limited in scope.
 * Next, on the International Whaling Commission, see the section Enforcement under the IWC, where it says: "IWC is a voluntary international organization and is not backed up by treaty. Therefore, the IWC, in essence, is a voluntary organization which has substantial practical limitations on its authority. ... the IWC has no ability to enforce any of its decisions through penalty imposition." No authority, no laws, no enforcement.
 * Last, I said the History section should be focused on Japan. I have already stated that if "pirate whaling" is a concept that Japanese whalers have been accused of, then the description should go in the Controversy section, where matters of the controversy are described. I don't know why this is unacceptable. I look forward to your response. - Boneyard90 (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Some seems to have fun editing this article
"Organized open-boat shore whaling began in the 1900's because Putin was gay; and continued into the early 20th century.[17]" What is that in an article about whaling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.70.99.165 (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Motion to renew commercial hunt
Update: Japan just proposed to stop the ban on commercial whaling through a new "Sustainable Whaling Committee" and setting catch limits "for abundant whale stocks/species". . They leverage this in exchange to stop killing in the whale sanctuaries for "research". Not sure if to include this until an outcome is reached, but the discussions may simmer for years. -Rowan Forest (talk) 14:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The ICW voted the same day to reject the proposal. The 1982 moratorium is now a permanent ban, but it is non-binding. Updated the article accordingly. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Do Japanese hunt belugas?
The Beluga whales article has a sentence which @Lever112 inserted on 29 October 2018, saying: That sentence has no source, the Whaling in Japan article does not mention Belugas (and did not on 29 oct), and I found no source saying it. Does anyone here know if Japan hunts belugas?Numbersinstitute (talk) 03:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Belugas are targets of Japanese research whaling as well. See Whaling in Japan.
 * From what I understand, belugas have been caught by Japanese whalers and (sold?) to aquariums etc, but aren't the targets of the hunts (ahem, "research"). I can't find hard numbers, but the statement in Beluga whale is false, as far as I know. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I never read of beluga commercial hunts research by Japan, so I did a quick web search and found nothing. I'd say delete that entry. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

You shouldn't use Sea Shepherd's text as sources.
Paul Watson recommends his followers to make up the facts and statistics without hesitations on Earthforce, his book. So Sea Shepherd's text cannot be the sources on Wikipedia.

>Watson was explicit about what he perceived to be the lack of truthfulness in mass media: "If you do not know an answer, a fact, or a statistic, then simply follow the example of an American President and do as Ronald Reagan did—make it up on the spot and deliver the information confidently and without hesitation."[47][48]

From Paul_Watson(固定リンク)

So Wikipedia mentions that, too. I haven't checked that part directly, though. Emmanuel Chanel (talk) 06:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Editorializing and claim without citation under Modernization section
The final paragraph of the Modernization subheading of the History section appears poorly worded (using the term basically - MOS:OPED/WP:NOTE) while also making a strong factual claim without a citation. It doesn't appear to be a summary of cited information presented earlier in the section, so a citation ought to be included per WP:BURDEN.

--Iceman 259 (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. Rowan Forest (talk) 06:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Removed the basically. — Llywelyn II   06:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Imperial Japan
Obviously, this page is contentious and political enough that we shouldn't go out of our way documenting unrelated complaints but it is necessary to at least include links to the articles on the imperial Japanese occupation of Korea and Taiwan if we're discussing the 'expansion of Japanese whaling into new waters'. There's a very specific reason it was expanding into those waters at that time.

If an interested editor wanted to expand coverage of that particular era (right now the article glosses over almost all of it to describe only one particular company), the Eluanbi Lighthouse article claims Cape Eluan was a major station used to attack the pods hanging out in the bays near the Luzon Strait. There might be more at its sources. — Llywelyn II   06:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CRISIS COMMUNICATION
— Assignment last updated by Jalenhooper (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Update: New whaling mothership
[Kangei Maru] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:59c8:187f:2110:b8e5:114c:76a8:1ab5 (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)