Talk:Whaling in Japan/Archive 2

Source about Commercial Viability

Average consumption per day a person in Japan. [[1]] The consumption is 4646 tons a year in Japan.--218.112.38.38 (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I know that this question is very late, but maybe someone "in the know" will spot it and respond. Can anyone tell me why it is that the farming of cattle, sheep, pigs is quite OK. That is, the deliberate insemination and rearing of offspring, with the sole intention of killing them for food. But the "harvesting" of what are otherwise wild animals is so frowned upon? 212.139.244.103 (talk) 08:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Extinction. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Biased wording: slaughter

The use of the phrase "where the commercial slaughter of dolphins continues to this day" is very biased. not only is the mention of dolphins off topic, both within the paragrahp and the article as a whole, the use of the word "slaughter" clearly projects a particular moral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.198.110.161 (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The place where they slaughter the animals for food is called a slaughterhouse and the method called "slaughter" in the legal texts of many English-speaking countries. Therefore, you = WRONG. CJ DUB

Slaughter sounds mean. People should use nice phrases like "commercial catching of dolphins where the dolphins end up dead" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.219.62 (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/bsefaq.html

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/disemala/avflu/surv/rpt2_3e.shtml

(talk) 02:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Although slaughter is not necessarily a morally biased word, it is more appropriate to refer to killing a whale as "taking" a whale for the purposes of maintaining neutrality. Cetamata (talk) 05:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No. "Taking" is a euphemism. "Killing" is the neutral word. Hans Adler 07:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Harvesting is common in the industry. Cptnono (talk) 07:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"The industry" is not neutral. Of course it uses euphemisms. We must keep in mind that this is very much an illegal industry. Hans Adler 07:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think its important to find a compromise that allows for expansion of factual information in this article and if the word slaughter produces a great deal of conflict then other terms are sufficient. I've seen "take" of whales in both books and articles about whaling. It seems appropriate. Harvesting I would say is inappropriate as slaughter but in direct contrast in meaning. Harvesting could be interpreted as making a case for whaling and slaughtering could be interpreted as making a case against whaling.

ICR "in the Antarctic, the research take"

Greenpeace "The last time Japan reduced its take"

I believe "take" should be adopted for the purpose of maintaining the article's neutrality and eliminating the need for this objection to "slaughter" Cetamata (talk) 07:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"Take" (as a noun) yields a surprising amount of results when poking around for sources. Cptnono (talk) 07:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with "killing"? Why the need for a euphemism? We don't use mafia euphemisms when talking about criminal activities, and I don't see how this is substantially different. Hans Adler 07:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with harvesting or referring to the "take"? We certainly use industry specific terms in the array of topics on Wikipeida. Oddly enough, "pick" is not used once at Agriculture. Depending on the sentence, we may not need to use any of them. Cptnono (talk) 08:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Avoiding any terms at all is OK, euphemisms are not OK. We don't use industry specific euphemisms for illegal industries. We talk about "child pornography", not "underage erotica". Waterboarding is "torture", not an "interrogation technique". And whaling is "killing", not "harvesting". Hans Adler 08:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hans, if you're joining this discussion with the mindset that killing whales is on par with mafia crime, child pornography and torture, you're going to have a hard time. Please check your bias at the door. I have no problem with the word "slaughter". It just doesn't apply here. My feeling for it matches the slaughter article which states that "Commonly it refers to killing and butchering of domestic livestock." Similarly, harvest hardly fits with killing animals. Catch, kill, and take are, I think, all used appropriately in the article. "Catch" is the most general term, "kill" refers to the actual killing, and "take" to the taking. I can see how this is a sticking point for evangelicals. For the anti-whaling side the main issue about the catch is the kill (for being an immoral act) but to the pro side whalers hunt to take something home, not to extinguish life for it's own sake. To conclude (this section, hopefully): "Slaughter" is not appropriate for the killing of whales (as opposed to dolphin drive hunting where dolphins are rounded up and slaughtered). --Swift (talk) 10:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Where did I defend "slaughter"? I think nobody is arguing for that. I am arguing against replacing "killing" by "taking" or other euphemisms.

Commercial whaling is illegal and "scientific" whaling is transparently a cover for it. Internationally, the public discourse about this topic in most countries is dominated by disgust and moral outrage. I did not claim that working to fully extinguish several species of mammals is as bad as torture or child abuse. Commercial whaling is less severe in one respect (does not directly affect humans) and more severe in another (if it did affect humans it would be comparable to genocide), so they are not directly comparable. But analogies are rarely perfect. I started using analogies because some people here seem to be pushing euphemisms. Hans Adler 10:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say you were defending the term "slaughter". The topic of this section is, however, whether that word is biased.

Commercial whaling is prohibited under the IWC which means that those IWC countries that have signed the treaty without reservations are bound by it. Norway never signed and so its whaling is legal. Iceland re-signed, this time with a provision which makes its hunt legal (the provision was agreed to by the majority of the IWC). Japan signed the treaty and is prohibited from commercial whaling.

The moratorium has served well to prevent the extinction of several species of whales. It was however temporary in nature and thus a clause for scientific whaling was inserted so there would be a mechanism for evaluating when the stock might be large enough to sustain (limited) hunting again. The Japanese scientific hunt is reviewed by the IWC Scientific Committee. While it regularly (and reasonably) protests against the hunt, it does acknowledge that it is being conducted within the provisions of the moratorium. The IWC is free to change the rules, but until it does the hunt (may it be a cover, scientific, immoral, understandable, tragic or otherwise) is legal. Despite all the talk from anti-whaling governments, none has actually seen it as a viable option to take Japan to the ICJ in The Hague. Whether or not that speaks for anything, it is a fact and thus no current commercial, scientific, or sustenance whaling has been judged illegal.

Several stocks of whales have been hunted in the past decades since the moratorium. These are controlled and there is no evidence that they are being depleted. There is no need to be dramatic about this. There is no dichotomy between tree-hugging whale lovers and murderous savages. The world is in colour. --Swift (talk) 12:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"a clause for scientific whaling was inserted so there would be a mechanism for evaluating when the stock might be large enough" – That's an interesting interpretation of the purpose of "scientific" whaling. If that's correct and can be sourced we should mention it. I can understand why neither of the two sides in the conflict is interested in drawing attention to it.

A lot of transparently illegal actions can't be prosecuted. E.g. George W. Bush still hasn't been tried for his crimes. That doesn't make his actions legal and is not an excuse for euphemisms. Hans Adler 13:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. [2] and you can do your own homework from now on. --Swift (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That document doesn't define the purpose of "scientific whaling" as killing whales and seeing how the population reacts. Reading it in this way would fall under WP:SYNTH. The public perception is that "scientific" whaling is supposed to be for the purpose of examining the cadavers. And they claim they are doing it to determine the whales' age. Hans Adler 16:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The talk section is not intended to give everyone a platform to rehash every argument that ever was concerning whaling. Let's keep this relevant. Some people object to the word "slaughter" due to sensitivity or how they feel whaling is portrayed. Others want the word included due to opposing sensitivities or perhaps a simple lack of agreement with the original objection. The problem is, this article has been flagged for a lack of neutrality for a long time. Accepting an alternate term for the purpose of neutrality is the goal. If the ICR and Greenpeace both use "take" in their documents it's good enough for wikipedia and suitably neutral. Cetamata (talk) 13:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Cetamata, 4½ months after the last contribution to this thread you have reopened it to push the euphemism "taking" by creating a false dichotomy with "slaughter" (which is not currently in the article and is not being supported by anybody). I tried to stop this gaming, and Cptnono proposed another euphemism instead: "harvesting". After a while Swift jumps in, falsely implying that I support "slaughter" ("Hans, if you're joining this discussion with the mindset [...]. Please check your bias at the door. I have no problem with the word 'slaughter'. It just doesn't apply here.") and immediately afterwards denies it: "I didn't say you were defending the term 'slaughter'. The topic of this section is, however, whether that word is biased." No it is not. Whether "slaughter" is biased was the topic in January 2008 and July 2009. The agenda in December 2009 is using "slaughter" as a straw man for "killing" and taking this as an excuse to replace neutral language by euphemisms. Unless three editors happen to be seriously confused at the same time. Hans Adler 13:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I've looked over the article and it seems that the word slaughter doesn't appear anywhere in the current text anyway (I thought it was still being used in the controversy section). I also just noticed that the ICRW text refers to the "take" of whales. It's not my intent to revive an old argument. Just to complete this article over time and get the dispute over neutrality resolved. Cetamata (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Cetamata wrote "If the ICR and Greenpeace both use 'take' in their documents it's good enough for wikipedia and suitably neutral." Not so fast. Greenpeace does use "slaughter" when referring to Japan's killing of whales. A simple search of their site using the terms "whale + slaughter + japan" returned more than a hundred documents on their website using the term "slaughter", including their main page on "ocean campaigns" ( http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/oceans ) where they state "Whale slaughter continues to put endangered species at risk..." So, you were able to find one or two places where Greenpeace's website used the term "take"? Congratulations. The writer was probably running out of euphemisms for "slaughter", a term they use pointedly and repeatedly. So let's not try this "Greeneapse uses 'take', so it's good enough for WP" nonsense. Unless you have an affidavit from Greenpeace saying that "take" is the term they prefer, you're shooting blanks. Other environmental groups that use the term "slaughter" to refer to whaling today include the United Nations Environmental Programme, National Geographic, the Sierra Club, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Audubon Society, the Rainforest Action Network, the Earth Island Institute, the World Wildlife Federation, Friends of the Earth and many other national and international organizations, and the Whale Conservation Coalition of Japan, the Dolphin & Whale Action Network (of Japan), and many more. So, if it's an appeal to authority you want, you can't win. The term "slaughter" is absolutely accurate here. Bricology (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Cetamata, I had not intention of rehashing every argument that ever was concerning whaling. I will admit that rather than stick to the single topic at hand, I went and fed the troll. I stand corrected.

Hans, I hope you'll forgive me for abstaining from further discussion until actual suggestions to improve the article are raised. I know better than to argue with people trying to tell me what my intentions are. --Swift (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If you reflect upon the situation, perhaps you can forgive me for having felt like in a Three-card Monte crowd. Hans Adler 16:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Industry euphemisms are biased, too

I agree that "take" and "catch" are are industry euphemisms and thus shouldn't be here unqualified. (If someone wanted to include them in a sort of explanatory note or callout on industry terminology, that might work). They've creeped into the article so I'm going back through now to change it. However, I recognize that the terms "kill" and "killed" (and even "slaughter") are insufficient, as well -- they don't include the meat harvesting/processing components of whaling. PrBeacon (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Industry terms used by it and overseeing bodies. Take and catch are just fine. It was good for awhile with a couple kills and a couple catches in the mix. Now it is all kill. What happened?Cptnono (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree that they're okay, for precisely the reasons given above and elsewhere. It's misleading. Where the article says "take" (or "taken") I am changing it to "catch and kill" (or not, when context seems to dictate) and adding "kill" to where it only says "catch." PrBeacon (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"Take" is used in the text of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. [3] Cetamata (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The change actually goes against consensus from my understanding of the previous conversation. Opinion was obviously divided so hopefully we can come to a better solution. Switching to catch and kill is redundant since they mean the same thing in most of the article. As mentioned twice in the last few minutes "Take" is used by overseeing bodies. It might sound off to you but it is a proper term. I don't mind kill here and there but I do disagree with your change.Cptnono (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Cptnono and also disagree with removing the word take to replace it with kill and catch. In my opinion this will detract from the neutrality of the article. Cetamata (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

What consensus? Apparently the article said "slaughter" and "kill" before, and the OP objected to the former for POV. The IWC convention uses both "take" and "kill" so it's not definitive, nor should it be the arbiter. (E.g. they condemn Japan's whaling activities and reject its research claims, yet keep them as a member). As HansAdler argues above, using an illegal industry's euphemism is not neutral. PrBeacon (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. When people read this page and see, kill, slaughter, kill slaughter, kill, slaughter, they're going to know exactly why there is "neutrality dispute" (which I was hoping to someday get rid of). Do what you want. Cetamata (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It looked (and still does) that people disagree with slaughter but catch, take, and even kill are not as big of a concern. Changing all of them creates a problem ans skews the article. I personally feel that we had a good mix for awhile.Cptnono (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and "harvest" was not a hit even though I like it and it is popular in the industry. "Take", "kill", and "catch" seemed like a good compromise that does not screw up the article of actually or balance wise. I honestly don't mind any of terms (including slaughter) to the point of complete omission after going over it more. I assume there is not consensus to use any of them universally and trying to do so is a dead end.Cptnono (talk) 07:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)   The problem with this article using unqualified terms like "take" and "catch" (and even "harvest," arguably) is that these words falsely imply that the whales are not killed -- disregarding the rare to nonexistent 'non-lethal research.'
      In contrast to the Japanese whaling, there is the legitimate research of wild animals which are caught, tagged and released for further study. This association is exactly why the terms "take" and "catch" are effective euphemisms by the whaling industry. Furthermore, our audience is not necessarily readers familiar with the common use of these terms. No one here is arguing for "slaughter," by the way, so that point is moot. PrBeacon (talk) 07:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

How 'bout you look at the section heading (slaughter) :) . "Kill" implies that it is not a harvest which is how some view it. Goes both ways. If you want "kill" in then we should consider it. All you have to do is agree to have some instances of all (minus harvest and slaughter if that hurts people's feelings less) and I suspect you won't run into too many objections. I could be wrong since a couple people voiced opposition to kill before but I am not 100% opposed to its usage if that is consensus. Cptnono (talk) 08:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha, yea thats why I added the subsection to clarify. (By the way, my final point there was in reply to Cetamata who apparently saw "kill, slaughter, kill slaughter" when I made changes. Funny how we read into what we disagree with.) Anyway, I agree that "kill" is insufficient, as I said above about the other components of whaling. At the moment I'd like to wait & see what other editors have to say about it. PrBeacon (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, that was my bad getting the page locked. PrBeacon made a couple edits that I removed since there was some opposition. Bad form on my part if it came across like to much. I sent a message to the admin and I assume we can not go back and forth too much. I'll keep an eye on myself. Can we keep the SSCS page over there. I completely disagree with your assessment and that will be a long discussion.

I see no problem with some words that are used in the industry. It makes it even less of a problem when nonindustry sources use them. Cptnono (talk) 08:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah others would be great. Do me a favor and promise not be a jekoff like me User talk:NJA#Whaling in Japan over there. I feel bad.Cptnono (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Please Resolve Dispute

I'll agree to a mixed use of terms as long as the result is not kill and some variation of the word kill in every sentence. This is not an effort to sugar-coat whaling. It's an effort to keep the article as neutral as possible. Cetamata (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that every sentence contain the word kill. But if the terms "catch" and "take" appear unqualified when you mean harpoon, kill and cut up, then that is in fact sugar-coating, ie euphemistic. By now we all know what you & I think about it. Why not let other editors weigh in. PrBeacon (talk) 07:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It really is turning into you not understanding the prevalence of those terms and disliking them. All e three of us have to do is agree to give "kill" a little more use and not edit war. We can also make no changes with the page unlocked while others comment.Cptnono (talk) 07:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You're mischaracterizing my objection, some might even say patronizingly so. I've already conceded that they are commonly used. Thats not the point. They're not neutral. PrBeacon (talk) 07:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree. It is more neutral than kill IMO since it is standard while kill can imply that they are malicious. We have it up at the board now and were not going to agree it looks like. We'll see what others think and hopefully get it figured out.Cptnono (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"Kill can imply that they are malicious"? Surely you are joking. Hans Adler 10:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I am being a little over the top. However, humans kill their food and most people don't view it as a negative thing. We could easily be twisting this We don't need to be overly forceful in the terminology. I don't think there is really any true confusion that animals are killed in the oceans, in the forests, on farms, or anywhere else that they are sought after. We don't need to stoke the emotional fires by repeating kill over and over again like it is a dirty terrible thing. Kill is used once at cattle and 0 at Fishing. Why aren't we arguing to use the term more over there? Because whaling brings out extra emotions in people and we don't need to pander to that.Cptnono (talk) 10:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting point Cptnono and it seems the more controversial the subject (animal rights opposition) the more often the word "kill" appears in a Wikipedia article in the following cases. (mentioned on NPOV noticeboard)

fishing 0

History of Fishing 1

cattle 1

beef 1

poultry 3

bycatch 3

venison 1

foie gras 1

shark finning 6

Whaling in the United States 4

History of Whaling 11

Whaling in the Faroe Islands 19

Hunting 22

Seal Hunt 25

Fox Hunting 27

Wolf Hunting 67

(PrBeacon's edits of) Whaling in Japan 32

(Prior to PrBeacon's edits) 8

But, does this establish failure to follow NPOV? Cetamata (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You're comparing apples and oranges. Besides, 'Whaling in the US' only has 4 instances, by your count, therefore there's less opposition? Thats ridiculous. Furthermore, citing statistics from fishing and food pages is misleading at best, more likely disingenous -- it only shows that the Fishing pages need more balance in their use of terms. And how many times did your edits replace the word "kill" or "slaughter" with "take" or "catch" ...PrBeacon (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's see. Looking back over my edits I once removed the line, "most Japanese fishermen were opposed to the indiscriminate killing of whales" and in a separate edit I added in the line "The study, in which 6779 whales sampled and more than 4500 were killed". So that about balances me out.

Remember that you're the guy who showed up here and arbitrarily decided the language used wasn't appropriate and proceeded to change over 24 instances of wording you don't like in spite of objections to your edits. Cetamata (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(removed my angry reply in the interest of going forward) Cetamata (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

it's not neutral. as stated before, they commonly, actually constantly, use slaughter about pig and cows. "slaughter house". this is the sam thing. hundreds of animals being killed mostly for food. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that we're writing about mammals here, not fish. Fish are caught, mammals are killed, butchered, or slaughtered. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Within reason, let's stick to terminology that supports encyclopedic accuracy, and in the case of the controlled killing of a mammal, slaughter is and will be the proper term regardless of the pressure of vandals or other individuals with an emotional or ideological interest in sugar-coating the whaling activities of any country. The word slaughter can not be considered biased unless you mean biased in the favor of the English dictionary, which hopefully we are all familiar with. --APDEF (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

February 2008 rewrite

I just did a big edit on this page, largely weeding out weasels and uncited statements that I couldn't find any support for. I figured I'd leave a comment here in addition to my edit summaries since this is a contested topic.

I removed the toxin section as it was pretty much duplicating content on Whaling. Not on the Japanese side, though, so I added a short sentence on that. Please see that page for more and contribute if you have more to offer on that subject.

I removed some content as I thought it wouldn't contribute much after it was stripped of sub-standard portions. I tried replacing it with fairly solid citable material. The Controversy section now only mentions a couple (I think the most important) issues raised by Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd, respectively. I didn't put anything on individual governments' statements but mentioned that some did object. No citations for that, but I don't think it's something that anyone would object to.

The history section shares a lot of content with the History of whaling#The Japanese Fishery which desperately needs a rewrite anyway.

The Recent events section needs wikification and copy editing as already noted.

I'm contemplating removing the Catch statistics completely in favour of a link to those numbers. --Swift (talk) 08:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

March 3 event

shouldn't we be a bit more clear that Sea Shepherd was the one that threw the butyric acid than be ambiguous? 165.21.155.74 (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of which, the comments already made about Sea Shepherd in the article seem to smack of bias. The comment about them "delivering a letter" for instance, regarding an earlier incident, when media coverage outside of Australia and New Zealand seem to indicate that the Sea Shepherd boarders were caught in acts of sabotage, including what were referred to only as "acid attacks", probably referring to the same Butyric acid used in the current incident. --58.174.99.55 (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Tuna revert

regarding: this addition

Hi Pengo ;)

I reverted the tuna claim suggestion due to its weasel wording " Some suggest " Who suggests? Scientist? NGO´s? Governments? Some media hack? my Aunt Gladis? ;) I have no problem with the suggestion being reinserted with the "some" being attributed to someone or some organisation that actually has hard facts - otherwise, it´s just weasely insinuation by "some";)

cheersSammytheSeal (talk) 08:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

As was in the reference, it was suggested by Robyn Williams, hosting the ABC Science Show, with agreement of Barbara Block Professor in Marine Sciences Department of Biology Stanford University Stanford California USA. I'm sure better, more general references could be found but I haven't looked. —Pengo 11:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pengo,

Reading through the transcript, I find this " Some people have suggested it's a stalking horse for tuna. In other words, if we defend our whaling rights people will forget our tuna catching. Do you have that similar sort of feeling?" In other words, the presenter is repeating hearsay and not attributing who these "some" are ( despite Block agreeing )If you can find an attribute to WHO actually says this then fine - I´ll leave it for a while but will add that the attribute / Cite is to a TV presenter at some future point if no better cite appears k? cheers SammytheSeal (talk) 11:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed this. It's hearsay. --Swift (talk) 05:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Reinstalled reference to IWC position on JARPA in Southern Whale Sanctuary

Someone had removed a previously referenced comment on the IWC position on JARPA in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. The removal of this portion of text would seem to be politically based vandalisim, and removal of this portion of text again will be challenged on that basis. The IWC position on whaling in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary is highly relevant, and is a neutral position. Just stating what the IWC position is not biased. Please don't vandalize this article.John Moss (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Tokyo Two

Shouldn`t some mention be made of the two Japanese men working for Greenpeace Japan who face ten year prison sentences? ( see today's Guardian)

Describing these two petty thieves as Tokyo Two trivialises the real life tragedy that happend to the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six. Tarafuku10 (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Steve Irwin Collision With Yushin Maru No3 6 Feb 2009.JPG

The image File:Steve Irwin Collision With Yushin Maru No3 6 Feb 2009.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Revert

I object to this revert. [4] The problem is that while the quotation is literal, it is not a literal quotation from the speakers to which we ascribe it but from a Times journalist. In other words: We are lying. The quotation marks must go, and this makes it necessary to reduce the literal quotation. The fact that commercial whaling is banned is important, and I have just rewritten the lead (which had the same problem) to give it a bit more weight. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of quotes. Wikipedia:Quotations doesn't say anything about "literal quotation" or the apparent distinction you make. We have to trust that the Times reporter has her sources; are you actually questioning the verifiability of the reporter? And furthermore, though personally I dont mind your change to the lead/intro (ie, removing the quote marks), others may see that as more objectionable. Fhue (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

same for the body section, now.
as I said, I dont mind the way you've reworked it, but removing the quotes marks is arguable. Fhue (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, on rereading I see that "as" is part of the literal quotation, which makes a big difference because it cannot possibly be read as if Australia and environmental organisations released a joint statement containing that identical text. So I take back the "lying". Nevertheless one of the two identical quotations had to go anyway per WP:Quotations, and I think it's bad style to quote a journalist's sentence that can easily be paraphrased. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Restructure

In my opinion the whaling in Japan page is in dire need of restructuring. There seems to be a great deal of overlap between disputes, controversy and IWC debate. Also, the page does not touch upon the controversy of Japan's whaling prior to the moratorium and there was indeed a great deal of public debate

I believe "Whaling in Japan" should be structured in a new format that addresses historical accuracy more than justification of support/objections...

1) Introduction/Summary
2) Origin/Aboriginal history (whales taken/methods used/time period/use of whale product)
3) Pre-Moratorium Commercial whaling history (whales taken/methods used/international influence on industry/use of whale product)

4) Research whaling/Modern whaling history (whales taken/methods used/reasoning behind research/use of whale products)
5) Coastal Bycatch whaling (whales taken/laws supporting/methods used/use of whale product)
6) Black market whale product
7) Dolphin drives/small cetacean hunting (whales taken/methods used/international influence on industry/use of whale product)

8) IWC Regarding Japan (major decisions - quotas/protected species/small cetaceans/moratorium/science committee/important votes etc)
9) Regulations that apply to Japan pre-moratorium/current (or would apply but for objections)
10) Affect of International Observers
11) Japan economic influence in the IWC
12) Threats to leave IWC
13) Japan IWC representatives

14) International Government objections/support/Japan rebuttal
15) Scientific objections/support/Japan rebuttal
16) NGO/Environmentalist objections/Japan rebuttal
17) Japanese public objections/support/awareness

18) Research performed (published work/results/challenges)
19) Japan ICR in brief (including private companies involved in whaling through ICR)

20) Legal Challenges (Australia in particular has deemed the Antarctic whaling operation illegal for example)/Japan rebuttal
21) Significant non-violent protest (Save the Whales/Save the Whales Again)/Japan rebuttal
22) Significant direct action (Sea Shepherd/Greenpeace) intervention incidents/Japan rebuttal
23) Recent Media attention (Mother-calf photos, Whale Wars, The Cove)/Japan rebuttal
24) Propaganda (whales eat fish and destroy fisheries/eco-terrorism/whale abundance)

25) Trade relations affect on pro/anti-whaling politics
26) Japan government subsidies for whaling industry
27) Food safety concerns (product labeling/Minamata disease)
28) Importation of whale product from Norway/Iceland
29) Recent IMO regulations regarding ship/industrial restrictions that could affect whaling ships
30) Exploitation of other resources relating to whaling (such as krill/forage fish harvesting for aquaculture)

Cetamata (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

See also

Removed a couple of things. Also wanted to mention that most of the list can be removed: "Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a 'See also' section" per WP:SEEALSO.Cptnono (talk) 09:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Aboriginal whaling

The context of the the Ainu in describing aboriginal Japanese whaling is important. Japanese representatives claim there is a tradition of whaling that goes back to the Jomon period as if the same tradition has evolved into modern Japanese culture and modern whaling. However critics argue that the government in Japan does not respect other traditional cultural fishing rights in modern days for a variety of reasons. Nor was the aboriginal cultural status of the Ainu even recognized officially in Japan until 2008. Mentioning this in the history of Japanese whaling maintains a proper context instead of simply making a case for whaling. By stating the historical fact and providing this context the article retains its neutrality. Cetamata (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the aboriginal peoples of the Japanese archipelago engaged to some degree in whaling is relevant to the section on aboriginal whaling in this article. That there may be some hypocrisy in modern policy is not. Nor does it in any real way weigh on the rationale for whaling.

Should the IWC judge that a whale stock can sustain (limited) commercial whaling anyone could apply for permits; not just those countries with a history of aboriginal whaling.

The aboriginal argument has mainly been lodged to permit certain tribes to continue limited catches. This is for example the case with current US whaling. The fact that the US allegedly ignores some native American claims for land and resources does not mean they cannot honour others. --Swift (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This article isn't about just modern whaling in Japan.Cptnono (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's improved vastly over the last few years but it would be great if the early historical sections would be expanded upon even more. --Swift (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Very well. However, I trust you will not remove the same information when it is posted in the controversy section. I'd also appreciate it if you'd address such issues in the controversy section rather than deleting it completely from the article as it is indeed relevant to arguments Japanese representatives have made for rights to coastal whaling and against U.S. native subsistence whaling. Cetamata (talk) 05:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You can trust that I will not remove any information relevant to the controversy from that section. Note, however, that if we were to add every opinion expressed in a newspaper article, this encyclopedia article would overflow very quickly. A quick search reveals that this is hardly such a controversy: only the cited article and a poorly argued Greenpeace blog post. It's not surprising that few have taken up the issue: That the Ainu aren't given salmon fishing rights does not reflect on the sustainability or morality of minke whaling in the Southern Ocean. --Swift (talk) 09:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll provide more sources when I get to the controversy section. However, this or any other portion of the article should not be turned into an edit war over personal opinions about which conservationist or Japanese fisheries representative argument should be included. If an argument related to Japan's whaling has been published and responded to then it can be mentioned in brief as part of the controversy. That's all I'm saying. I've seen the Ainu argument mentioned in more than one source (not just a Greenpeace link) which is why I included it in the history edit to begin with. It's not about the Ainu's fishing rights so much as the argument that Japan undermines it's insistence on the importance of tradition while denying traditions to others. Much in the way the USA is criticized for opposing commercial and research whaling while supporting native traditional subsistence whaling that takes endangered bowhead whales. An example of the argument and counter-argument should be included in the controversy section.

And yes, the section will grow, as it should, because there is an abundance of controversy in Japan's whaling history. Cetamata (talk) 13:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right, that this argument has been responded to does lend it notability. Just beware of lending it disproportionate weight in the article. I've only seen that one LA Times article and the Greenpeace blog post. As it was, it constituted about half the section on the aboriginal whaling.

I think everyone here should be extra careful about their motives for editing this article. I think everyone is passionate about the quality of the article, but it can be hard to present the broad debate in a just manner as many have passionate views on the issues as well.

I'm looking forward to your future contributions. --Swift (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Cetamata's edits

I have concerns with Cetamata's edits and have adjusted a couple of them. Basic layout, formatting, and citation guidelines are not being followed. Also, it looks like some of the info added have WP:RECENTISM, WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, and WP:SOAPBOX. I have asked the user to make requests here until they are caught up with the standards.Cptnono (talk) 04:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm still relatively new to Wikipedia and haven't seen all of these guides. I started delving into the controversy surrounding the issue and got kind of overwhelmed by just what's happened this year (not to mention the recent past). And so initially started a "recent developments" section which was promptly edited out into the rest of the page. Also, please do not mistake a sudden burst of "controversy" as lending undue weight to one side of the argument or the other. There is just so much information to sort out. I've tried to find public statements directly from the ICR and Japanese officials to offset accusations and incidents and don't always end up with much to go on other than summarized quotes from news media articles.

I will read over the guides and do my best to adhere to them. If there are any others I should look over (based on my history edits) please let me know. Thanks! Cetamata (talk) 05:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I happen to share these concerns. Cetamata, you will have to take very good care in your research. It's easy to be lead along a particular path of interlinked websites that create a certain narrative. On a similar note, beware that this is an encyclopedia, not an annal.

I'm pretty busy these days, but will try to make some time in the near future to review recent contributions. --Swift (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

What would be most helpful - if there is an addition to the controversy section that requires a counter in order to maintain neutrality, please provide one. At some point I'd like to add more and restructure the controversy section to reflect the major arguments and incidents surrounding whaling in Japan. Cetamata (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you please clarify what you mean by "What would be most helpful"? --Swift (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. When I first looked over this article it was a mess and lacking a real description of the history of whaling in Japan. (more can and should be included over time) There was also little to no mention of the actual research programs that currently define Japan's pelagic whaling operations. I also immediately noticed the controversy section lacked coherent structure, repeated a few facts and omitted a great deal of information that relates to Japanese whaling. In order to properly describe the controversy that affects and (in the minds of some - defines) whaling, major incidents, events and otherwise published discourse should be documented. If you do not believe a particular subject is adequately covered, providing more information would be most helpful. Cetamata (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

First off, I have to disagree that this article was a mess. That difference of opinion may of course be due to a difference in reference (when I first found this article it was a mess. ;-)

Secondly, I'm still not quite sure what you meant by that part of your previous comment. We should all strive to fill in the article's many blanks, but giving a minor topic or event undue weight gives the reader an incorrect view of the subject and thus hurts the article. I asked you to clarify because I wasn't sure if you were saying that you were planning to add whatever content you felt missing, and that if anyone was unhappy with the neutrality, they'd just have to add content on the other side to balance it out. As I'm sure you've found from reading the policies Cptnono linked to at the top, that would be completely irresponsible.

Over emphasis on recent events and controversies have long been a problem here. I've toyed with the idea of forking that content off into a Whaling controversies article or something of the sort where this could be hashed out in more detail without hurting the Whaling in <Country> articles. --Swift (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You may be right about the need for a Whaling Controversies page. I've been thinking along those lines as well. However, I fear that some will edit out facts and insert controversy into this article regardless. Perhaps a "See Also: Controversy of Japanese Whaling" at the start of the article would help to prevent that. Cetamata (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Perry

I took out the paragraph on Commodore Perry's opening up of Japan. An earlier version mentioned that one of the reasons for opening up Japan was to secure whaling grounds. The paragraph I removed didn't seem to have much relevance to whaling in Japan so I cut it. We should look for a good resource on that episode in the history of whaling in Japan. This document might be a good start. --Swift (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The opening of Japan to the West leads to many changes in Japan including how whaling is later conducted. Perry and the USA were significant in establishing Western relations with Japan. Also, the rise of Japan as a naval power to rival the West created the potential for Japanese pelagic whaling outside of her coastal waters (otherwise would have been restricted by Russia and China - not to mention annexing Korean territory and whaling grounds). Expanded relations with the West eventually brought Norwegian whaling technology and techniques to Japan. This history is indeed relevant. I won't undo the changes you've made because you've made some improvements as well. However, some of the information removed was originally sourced from books on the history of whaling and should be included. Cetamata (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The content I removed was all unreferenced. I don't know to what extent the specific event of Perry sailing into Edo directly influenced whaling and have not seen anything to support that. To me it seems more likely that it was just a part of the general trend during the Meiji era (which, granted, started with Perry). Whatever the chain of events, we should find some good sources rather than indulge in original research. --Swift (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Random Search of Sources Discussing Whaling, Japan, and Commodore Mathew Perry...

• http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-05132005-131722/unrestricted/MAThesis.pdf
• http://econweb.rutgers.edu/tsurumi/whaling.pdf
• http://www.facts-about-japan.com/whaling-history.html
• http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fd20090830pb.html
• http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/world/asia/13iht-whale.4896081.html
• http://www.whaling.jp/english/isana/no30_02.html
• http://www.finebooksmagazine.com/issue/200907/japan-1.phtml

And don't forget "Men & Whales" by Richard Ellis which I originally cited. Pages 88 and 89 of that comprehensive history of whaling include Perry's historical expedition in a chapter about Japanese inshore/bay whaling. Cetamata (talk) 09:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

First, a quick note on methodology: The problem with such random searches is that they can have an inherent bias. By including the term whaling, you select those discussions on Commodore Perry's dealings with Japan that touch on whaling. This is of course useless in determining how prominent the view is that whaling was an important aspect. A search for "Commodore Perry Japan" yeilds some 10,900,000 results while "Commodore Perry Japan Whaling" a mere 58,000.

As to the content of these searches, many of the top results from the more general search do mention whaling (e.g. [5], [6] [7] [8]) but only in terms of the US fishery and the need for assistance to shipwrecked whalers and supplies to its expanding operations in the Pacific. I'm still unsure if this belongs in the Whaling in Japan. The Whaling, History of Whaling and Whaling in <country> articles need to be worked into a better whole and given a clearer scope. --Swift (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well regardless of the overall content of all whaling articles on wikipedia, it's clear that Japan's modern maritime history including its emergence as a naval power was significantly influenced by Perry's expedition. As an established naval power Japan expanded beyond coastal whaling and militarily secured new hunting grounds in Korea and even a captured Russian whaling fleet that was later used by Japanese fisheries. Unfortunately, it seems that this history is going to become a topic of revisionist argument. It's amazing that any usable documentation is produced by this service. Let's just revise this article down to the bare bones. "Whaling in Japan: Japan hunts some whales. [1]" Why bother explaining how, why, what, or when? Apparently it's all open to interpretation. Cetamata (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

References

Some of the data in this article is entirely unsupported by robust references. If these are not modified by the end of the week, I will start removing the references, and therefore the information based upon the reference will be re-written as unsupported. One perfect example of a flawed, and biased, reference is http://www.whaling.jp/english/history.html 8: a b "History of Whaling". Japan Whaling Association. http://www.whaling.jp/english/history.html. Retrieved 2009-12-19. "12th Century Hand-harpoon whaling starts in Japan" The reason the source is unreliable is because the source (the Japan Whale Assoc.) has a vested interest in promoting whaling as an ancient practice of cultural significance thus adding weight to the contentious issue of whaling for Japan, therefore providing the same association with further funding. Rather than sourcing from a company which is directly involved in whaling, this information will only be acceptable if sourced from an independent researcher non funded by the whaling industry. The article its self does not actually have any solid references or information about how the data was revealed. If an alternative is not provided, and I am unable to find a satisfactory one, this is the first part of the article I will re-write. Shuggyg (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do. Bricology (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Shuggyg, please point out specifically what was wrong and prove the source you mentioned above is flawed, biased and unreliable first. If you cannot show sources that the source above is unreliable, your post would be merely your personal opinion. Please see them all. [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], and [15]. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 08:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Oda Mari, your opinion is noted, however I am sure we can both agree that the sources do not fit the guidelines if wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines, which can be found reliable sources guidelines here. Lets get serious! I am not saying whaling is good or bad, however for people to come to their own opinions from information provided through wikipedia, we must not use information dubiously sourced from someone's "homepage2.nifty.com". Cute pictures of turtles do not a reliable source make. I will remove and revise the information by the end of this week if no better sources are provided. Thank you.Shuggyg (talk) 12:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"your opinion is noted" Sorry, but this sounds a bit condescending. "I am not saying whaling is good or bad..." No-one said you were. Let's keep this respectful, not get personal and try to stay on topic, okay?

As I said, you're free to edit, but be prepared for your work to be reverted. Should you refuse to discuss the matter, you may also find yourself blocked. --Swift (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The Japan Whale Association does have a vested interest in this matter, as do Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd,the Australian government and a range of other of our sources. Welcome to the world where people have opinions. Yes, some vested interests distort facts in their favour, but you'll have to specify how this is the case in each instance. You are free to edit this article as you like, but be prepared to be reverted until community consensus is reached on which of these are reliable enough to warrant inclusion. --Swift (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Swift - you cant seriously consider that any of the sources Oda Mari has put forward (except the first one) fit the wikipedia guideline. None of these things seem to be published in reputable peer reviewed sources, or well circulated media sources. The fact they have not been removed before now just shows how badly this page is in need of re writing.Shuggyg (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You're avoiding the point I made. There are plenty of sources with bias or vested interest that may still contribute valuable information. If you have trouble with any of these, feel free to remove it — just be ready for it to be re-inserted and a discussion started here. Alternatively, you could bring each issue here beforehand and we can discuss whether it constitutes a reliable source. --Swift (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

lack of scientific infornmation

there should be a section stating somthing about how no new scientific infomation comes out of japan about whales. i have researched there webste, and there news section states no new discoverys or information about whales, there diets or anything. rather, its full of biased statements about the "aggression" and "violence" of non-violent anti-whaling groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

JARPA sections

Cetamata recently restored sections on the JARPA programs to this article with the note that they had been WP:REMOVEd without discussion. As clarified in the edit summary, these were note removed, simply moved to Institute of Cetacean Research. The research is conducted by the ICR and thus more appropriate there. A link to guide people to that article was prominently placed at the top of the relevant section. --Swift (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The information is not more appropriate under the ICR article as Japanese pelagic whaling (and much of the opposition to it) has been defined by the JARPA, JARPA II, JARPN and JARPN II research programs. The ICR may be the body conducting the research but the "research" is "Japanese whaling" according to representatives of the Japanese government and the ICR. Cetamata (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

As you say, Japan's pelagic whaling has been under the auspices of the JARPA and JARPN programs. These programs are run by the ICR. They have, therefore everything to do with the ICR and it's reasonable to detail them in an article on the ICR. Were commercial whaling legal and there were several companies with operations in various parts of the world, we would obviously detail these operations in the articles on those companies. This article would then summarise these and link to other articles.

I can see the point of view that people might feel as though putting these operations in an article on a the Institute of Cetacean Research may somehow give it an air of legitimacy as research, and that they would rather see it under Whaling in Japan. Such selective placement is, however, an expression of a certain point of view and has no place at Wikipedia. Whatever the nature of these operations, they are more fitting in the article on the body that conducts them rather than in an overview article on the practice which they fall partly or in whole. --Swift (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The only selective placement being conducted is by you. Currently, Japanese whaling is defined by these research programs. You may feel that detailed information on "Japanese whaling" doesn't belong in the "Whaling in Japan" article. I don't agree with your assessment. You may feel personal opinions on the legitimacy of the research are a motivation for placement of this information. However, that is your opinion and in fact it is incorrect. You'll notice that I did not remove the information from the ICR article. That is because I am not concerned with establishing or eroding the legitimacy of Japan's whaling research. In fact, you'll notice the sources for the JARPA sections are from IWC documentation. The research programs have defined Japanese whaling since the 1980s and arguments over those programs defined opposition to Japanese whaling. There should be a detailed description of the research programs in the "Whaling in Japan" article. It's most relevant to the main topic. It is not more appropriate to move the information to a sub topic. Cetamata (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to truly examine each research program as a sub topic then please create a stub for JARPA, JARPA II, JARPN and JARPN II and properly describe each program, the data/papers produced and analyze them individually. Then link all of the stubs here and to the ICR article. Simply summarizing the programs in the main topic will unfortunately also negatively affect the neutrality of the article which is currently disputed. Cetamata (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The more I think about it, in my opinion, a separate stub for each research whaling program is the best route to take to resolve this dispute. Each can then be referenced from many different articles about whales, whaling and anti-whaling opposition rather than linking repeatedly to Whaling in Japan or Institute for Cetacean Research or Whaling Controversies. Cetamata (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)   The point is, they shouldn't be in both articles, nor as stubs/articles on their own. The "research" doesn't qualify as scientific because it's not peer-reviewed, and thus should not be given undue weight here. PrBeacon (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It should be mentioned here because it "exists" and that information is part of the big picture of Japanese whaling. It's not Wikipedia's job to establish whether or not it's valid science. However, the information in the JARPA sections comes from IWC documentation and includes details on the scientific committee disagreements and criticisms. So I don't see where you get the idea that it somehow adds legitimacy to the data. Cetamata (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Merely existing is not justification enough for inclusion. Again I refer you to policy and guidelines regarding undue weight as well as verifiability and reliablity. And yes it is our job to establish validity by way of sources. . PrBeacon (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Again you make references to policies that do not apply here. It exists AND it's part of the big picture of Japanese whaling. Don't bother replying to my responses if you're just going to regurgitate the same irritating nonsense. DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. When you've finished turning this into a "Anti-Whaling in Japan" page just be sure to leave a note. Cetamata (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

ALSO, EDITORS do not establish the validity of "science" that is disputed by other authoritative sources. WE CITE the authoritative sources. WP:NOR Cetamata (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Those policies do indeed apply here, irregardless of how you feel about them. You're parsing my words and deflecting the argument. The extensive JARPA/JARPN sections may belong in one or both of the articles, but not in both at full length. In one or the other, they should be summarized and a link to the full version included. PrBeacon (talk) 08:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you're the second editor to imply this needs to be done - go ahead. Just remember doing so when another user looks over the article and questions why it has half a page devoted to opposition and controversy while the information on the research programs that currently define Japanese whaling is tucked away in a separate article. Cetamata (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Undid revision 344611819 - comments inserted bias

Look, whaling is a contentious issue. Anyone reading or editing this page knows that.

However, when you add in statements like "There was considerable opposition for the publication of this paper from scientists based in anti whaling countries. Mark Simmonds, director of science at the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, argued that the paper should have been rejected on ethical grounds." you create a sense of bias.

The issue is a study based on Japanese research that was rejected by several publications (stated in the current article text). If we include every statement against these studies ever made by every conservation group/person we won't have a coherent history section on Japanese whaling.

Without that text we have a clear establishment that the study was published in a peer reviewed journal. That it was first rejected. One scientist who supports it and one scientist who does not support it. That is a suitably neutral presentation. Cetamata (talk) 03:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If there is a historical log of objections to the same study or an entire movement against the information in the study it should be in the opposition section in detail and a footnote in the history section. Cetamata (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Research Publications

I've created a new section for information on published results of whaling research. Anything about published/reviewed papers based on the JARPA and JARPN programs should go there. Cetamata (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The current edit imply that objection was entirely scientific. However, a newspaper categorically assert the fact that there were oppositions to publication from scientist in anti whaling countries and that there is a quote from such scientist who specifically state that objection was on ethical and not scientific ground. Therefore, deletion of this critical information is not warranted. Vapour (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we can categorize every scientist in the world according to what country they happen to come from. The original comment removed was from a WDCS representative who stated the paper should not have been published for ethical reasons. As WDCS is a group ideologically opposed to whaling, one would expect this response. However, the comment of a scientist involved in analyzing the data was that he believed the paper was first rejected for political reasons. That is included. Also included is the comment of another scientist that states the results were flawed.

I have no problem about inclusion of Nick Gales's POV, even though I personally do not think he made a valid counter argument. My problem is deletion of a factual information verified by a newspaper. It may be your personal opinion that categorising scientist as "scientists from anti whaling countries" is unwarranted. However, a newspaper (major one at that) do and this newspaper state such opposition to be a fact. Existence of sizeable opposition on non scientific ground from scientists in anti whaling countries is a relevant fact because one of the main argument about Japanese research whaling is that there is not much science in research. Vapour (talk) 07:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Edited text - "There was considerable opposition for the publication of this paper from scientists based in anti whaling countries. Mark Simmonds, director of science at the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, argued that the paper should have been rejected on ethical ground."

How does adding in more commentary by conservation groups, and implying a scientist is biased just because he comes from an anti-whaling country, help to provide balance? Cetamata (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It was not implied at all. A major U.K. newspaper state that there was an opposition from scientists in anti whaling countries. A quote from one of such scientist categorically state that objection is ethical and not scientific. It is not you or I to decide if that reporting by a newspaper is balanced or fair or, for that matter, true. I previously indicated that I do not consider Nick Gales argument to be valid or fair. However, I'm not in a position to tell Guardian newspaper that it got it wrong. Vapour (talk) 08:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. I won't revert the change again. But for the record, I think if you look at 90% of the information on this page you can find a news article that says "anti-whaling nations oppose this". It's even mentioned in the introductory paragraph. How often are we going to quote that outside of the opposition/controversy sections? Cetamata (talk) 08:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

link to papers published in peer reviewed journals listed by the ICR - http://www.icrwhale.org/JARPA91paper.htm

I can't vouch for whether or not all of the journals are considered worthy by the world's scientific community.

We're discussing this one - Konishi, K., Tamura, T., Zenitani, R., Bando, T., Kato, H. and Walloe, L. 2008. Decline in energy storage in the Antarctic minke whale (Balaenoptera bonaerensis) in the Southern Ocean. Polar Biol: 31: 1509-1520.

We could also refer to IWC documentation which supports Nick Gales assessment instead of relying on opinion. - [16]

"SC/D06/26 further suggested that, reflecting these unfavourable changes, blubber thickness and stomach content weight were reduced (indicating less prey consumption)." - "some members suggested that this was simplistic and ignored many other components of the Antarctic marine ecosystem. They thus believed that it was not particularly informative regarding what may have occurred." - It goes on to describe the objections that Gales summarized in the news article cited. [17]

From skimming over the document it seems there are some scientists that have questioned the publication for scientific reasons which kind of shoots down the concept that it was merely rejected on ethical grounds. Cetamata (talk) 09:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, the finding that there are 9 percent decrease in bludder is not disputed. It is a simple matter of measurement of captured whale. That alone warrant a publication. The cause of such a decrease is obviously in the realm of speculation and much can be disputed. Anyhow, given that some scientists oppose the publication on non scientific grounds, it kinda shoot down the appearance of neutrality and objectivity. For example, the past decrease in population is due to whaling and not from a lack of food. Therefore, it is possible for each whale to well fed yet its population being low. The paper is now asserting that the whale food stock is on the decrease. However, since whale hunting is restricted, the number of whale can be on increase on more restricted diet. The claim that the finding contradict stable or increasing total population of Atlantic mink whale shows appalling lapse of logic. Vapour (talk) 07:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait. Here is the problem. You are asserting scientists from anti-whaling countries purely objected to the publication on non-scientific grounds. Yet IWC documentation shows scientific (not ethical) problems were found with the data prior to the publication. So, if there is reasonable and scientific criticism of the publication, how can you assert the opinion that they're not being objective or neutral? Again, prior to the publication being rejected by journals, the results and data were criticized by scientists as simplistic and ignorant of the larger Antarctic ecosystem and not particularly informative. I understand that the data has convinced you. I'm just saying it's not appropriate to write the article as if every scientist who criticizes the data is somehow a biased anti-whaler with no objectivity. Cetamata (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Bloated?

It's water weight you bastard. No just kidding. It is readable prose per a dyk check and is under the limit length wise. Certain aspects might have too much weight and it could be broken into too many subsections (not sure) but the size itself is not a problem.Cptnono (talk) 06:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha, you replied to my new section title before i could finish composing the comment: Is it just me or does anyone else think this article has gotten weirdly bloated in the past few months?... As if to make a bulwark case for whaling's cultural value in Japan (against what could be seen as a rising tide of anti-whaling sentiment, that is). And yet the introduction seems threadbare in comparison. In the first two sentences it jumps from 12th century to 20th, then focuses on the modern conflicts. Hmmm... PrBeacon (talk) 07:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Totally. I actually spaced coming back awhile ago but do see weight going into Japan bad. Any specifics you see that need to be reworked.Cptnono (talk) 07:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it's bloated but the "whaling in Japan" subject itself has a long history and I've dumped a lot of data into it. (barely touched the actual controversy) It's been discussed that there may need to be a separate controversies of Japanese whaling article though. Cetamata (talk) 08:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Another option previously discussed was to break off the research program sections into separate articles. Cetamata (talk) 08:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"dumped" is the right word to describe it, but this isn't a dumping ground for everything out there on the web. As i said above, it looks as if -- by sheer volume of info -- you are making a case for the significance of Whaling in Japan. As Cptnono pointed out, there are guidelines for content. "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion" and "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information -- merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." I see from your contributions that you have only worked on this article. Perhaps you could work on other articles (ie, ones with more frequent contributors) and thus get a better feel of the give&take process between regular editors. And let others rework whats already here. PrBeacon (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

For starters, I'd say the introduction needs reworking to reflect the overall article. And even though there are separate articles on History of Whaling, Aboriginal, Whaling controversy, etc, I think those subtopics should be included here in brief summaries. I've only had time to skim over the recent contributions so I'll have to get back for more. PrBeacon (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's where you are wrong.

1) 90% of the contributions I've made to this page are about the HISTORY of Japanese whaling. Not arbitrary bits of information as described in Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Not lyrics databases, or excessive statistics, or plot descriptions, or 30 news reports on the same topic.

2) 90% of the contributions I've made to this page are about HISTORY - The only place I've mentioned controversy specifically has been in this discussion page and that's primarily because the controversy/opposition portion of the article has been lacking/poorly organized at times.

3) I was gigged by cptnono and swift for "recentism" when I added information about recent and significant events at the top of the page - since then I haven't touched current events so I'd appreciate it if you'd stop referring to that one incident as if it's an ongoing problem.

4) I've taken great pains to present historically accurate information without adding in undue weight to anti-whaling or pro-whaling groups. However, in many cases the facts may be viewed unfavorable from one perspective or another. That's not my fault. I can't account for every subjective viewpoint in reciting information about this subject. If you think there is some undue weight then discuss it properly and specifically in the talk page here instead of making a blanket accusation of bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cetamata (talk • contribs) 20:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Calling it all history doesn't make it so. Your most recent edits focus on reports of bycatch and production -- just because they have yearly dates doesn't make them historically important. And I didnt say anything about the pro- or anti- sections, because you've been crafty enough to avoid them. Bulking up the sections on "research" may be a more clever way to push POV, but it still stinks. Why did you fight to have the full JARPA info back on this page as well as keeping it on the ICR page? Your early defense of using the industry euphemism "take" as a verb for killing/slaughtering whales is another suspicious example. Other editors have asked you to be more careful, too -- not just on the one incident you mention. PrBeacon (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's whats funny. Swift implied I was biased for insisting the JARPA descriptions remain on this page because he thought I was anti-whaling. He implied I did not want the ICR page to give the research "weight". Now you're implying I kept that information here because I'm pro-whaling and want to give the ICR "weight". This is ridiculous. Just do whatever you want to do with no consideration for neutrality. Cetamata (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)   No, I think you misread Swift's comments as pro-whaling, or against you for being anti-whaling. He moved the JARPA info to ICR, you copied them back and left them there, as well. If you want to continue this JARPA-thread specifically, I suggest you respond in that secton, above. PrBeacon (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Research Whaling Titles

Please stop changing every "research" title to "claims of research". Remember this article is flagged for neutrality issues. By implying the research is invalid in the title you are inserting bias into the article.

Please cite information on objections to the research in a specific way through statements and evaluations made by authoritative sources in the appropriate way. Cetamata (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you think the "Research Whaling" and "Scientific Research" titles lend undue weight to pro-whaling arguments there is a suitable solution. In the history section it could be referred to as Special Permit Whaling which is closer to how the IWC describes it. The JARPA sections could be Special Permit Programs or Research Programs. Just an idea. Cetamata (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

How does the term "Claims of research" imply that the research is invalid? At best it includes the weight of scientific reason, at worst it casts doubt on it -- which is what the dispute does. There are enough notable sources criticizing Japan/ICR's claims. PrBeacon (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It implies no real research was performed - IE: it is just a "Claim of Research". That is a biased statement. You're here, falsely, flagging me for POV issues and THEN you deliberately insert bias into the article? what gives? Cetamata (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is more appropriate to refer to the "research" that consists in killing, processing and marketing whales / whale meat as "claimed research". I have been working on whaling related articles for a while now and have seen quite a few sources. What I haven't seen so far was any convincing description of scientific research goals that would explain the nature of and necessity for Japanese "research" whaling. And there can be no doubt that the dispute about whether it's legitimate research or just commercial activity pretending to be such is highly notable. (My personal opinion is that everybody knows it's the latter, but the IWC pretends not to see it because they know they would have even less control over the Japanese activities if Japan left the IWC.) Hans Adler 22:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This page is never going to get rid of the neutrality dispute as long as people aren't willing to let the facts speak for themselves. I also don't appreciate being falsely reported for engaging in edit warring for removing an obviously biased change. Cetamata (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This is formatted like a response to my comment, but is a series of non sequiturs if read as such. Please reformat it so it becomes clear who you are responding to (and remove this paragraph once it no longer makes sense). (You might also want to give more details regarding the edit warring report. I could not find such a report in the obvious place, which would be WP:AN/EW.) Hans Adler 22:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Hans I guess I was responding to both you and PrBeacon. Immediately after PrBeacon re-reverted to his original change (altered the "Research Whaling" title to say "Claims of Research") without discussing it in the talk page an "edit war" warning appeared on my talk page. Again I'd just like to stress that I've done everything possible to add to the information of this article and keep it as neutral as possible. My point is, we know the research is disputed. We are supposed to quote authoritative sources defining the disputes. We are not supposed to affirm (example: "Proven Science") or deny (example: "Claims of Research") in the titles of the article. Cetamata (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You are getting things exactly the wrong way round. I'm a mathematician. I do mathematical research. It wouldn't be wrong to say I claim that I'm doing mathematical research, it would merely be odd since there is no dispute about this. Similarly it can't be wrong to refer to the Japanese activities as claimed research. Referring to it as "research" without any qualification would be POV, however, since it clearly isn't research.

Also, a warning on your talk page is not at all the same thing as a report. We only use the latter term for reports to admin noticeboards. Hans Adler 23:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If you published research and your published research was referred to as merely a "claim of research" would you not perceive the statement to be a denouncement of your results? (Thanks for the heads up on the warning/report process. I haven't been through it all, yet.) Cetamata (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

But the ICR/Japan has not published research in peer-reviewed journals (except for a questionable one cited in this article), and they've been repeatedly criticized for that fact, which is why their claims of research are in question. I thought that you worked on the Whaling controversy page, or at least talked about it being a separate page, so you should know this. Furthermore, notice that I left the intro wording as is -- "necessary for scientific study" -- because is it saying that Japan argues that. You say "claims of research" is biased, but you dont give any reasonable explanation beyond saying it is "just a 'claim.." and that's your distinction, not mine. PrBeacon (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

PrB, criticism of the research is included in the text of the article as cited from authoritative sources. As editors, we are not supposed to inject our opinions. So the titles should reflect a neutral description of factual information. They should not say "claims of research" or "so-called research". Let the facts explain the subject matter to the reader. Cetamata (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That's just it, its not research by any stretch of the term, and calling it that is a disservice to readers. Even letting it go at "Claims of research" is generous. PrBeacon (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the research is valid. I specifically included the disputes in the IWC documentation. The IWC documentation is the authoritative source for this information - not from protesters or from Japan or from your personal opinion. You are, again, making a statement of opinion and injecting bias into the article based on your opinion. WP:NPOV Cetamata (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Japan is "whaling," all sources agree on that. While the pro-whalers make the "research" position/claim, pretty well every independent expert knows it's junk science, and, more importantly, reliable sources reflect that by almost always qualifying the term "research". As much as I hate peppering articles with the word "controversy" could this be a situation where it is the right thing to do, ie. "Controversial research program" for the section titles. Also suggest "Special/Exception permit whaling" could be considered.

Suggest that after first reference with qualification, the term "research whaling" not be used. Rather use the specific program name, for example "The research program took place near Antarctica from 1988 to 2005" --> "The JARPA program took place near Antarctica from 1988 to 2005" etc. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Existing Terms in Common Usage with links -

"Scientific Permit Whaling" - International Whaling Commission - [18]

"Japanese Whale Research Program" - Institute for Cetacean Research - [19]

"Research Whaling" - Japan Whaling Assoc - [20]

"Research Whaling" - Japan Ministry of Foreign Affairs - [21]

"Japanese Research Whaling" - Sea Shepherd Conservation Society - [22]

"Research Whaling" - Greenpeace - [23]

"Research Whaling" - Random news organizations - [24]

"Research Whaling" - IFAW - [25]

"Research Whaling" - WDCS & WWF - [26]

"Research Whaling" - Save Japan Dolphins - [27]

"Research Whaling" - EIA - [28]

"Japanese Research Whaling Program" - Australian Government - [29]

Still looks like you're arbitrarily replacing the most popular term to describe Japanese whaling with your biased POV edits, PrB. Cetamata (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Cetama, whom are you addressing? I've not been so involved here lately... Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 04:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

When I typed, PrB, I was referring to PrBeacon. However, the response will hopefully make sense to anyone involved in the discussion. The term "research whaling" is commonly used by those for and against whaling. Use in this article is not some special circumstance designed to give undue weight to pro-whaling arguments as PrBeacon suggests. Cetamata (talk) 04:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry missed the "PrB." How about uniformly qualifying the term, as "lethal research," which is also accurate and well-supported by sources? RomaC (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

That's unfortunately, not entirely accurate. The Japanese whaling programs also include some non-lethal study as well. [30]

"In summary, considerable data have been collected by the JARPA programme by both lethal and non-lethal methods, but there was disagreement at the workshop regarding the analyses presented and the interpretation of some of these data." Cetamata (talk) 05:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Please Resolve Dispute

I've shown many examples where the term "Research Whaling" is used by anti-whaling groups, Japanese whaling organizations, news organizations, and government entities. I believe this is the neutral term in common usage to refer to Japan's whaling programs and it should not be replaced with "Claims of Research".

This is not because of any desire to promote or legitimize Japan's whaling. I believe referring to the whaling as if it is a sham (ie: just a "claim of research" rather than "research of disputed value") negatively affects the neutrality of the article in favor of anti-whaling POV. Cetamata (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

There is an opposition section in the article for citing authoritative sources that have actually evaluated the research and expressed an expert opinion on its value. That _should_ be included rather than skewing the titles of the article to support that POV. Cetamata (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals By William F. Perrin, Bernd Würsig, J. G. M. Thewissen, 2nd Ed., 2008, page: 1243 [31]

This Encyclopedia refers to Japan's whaling programs as "Scientific Whaling" in a section title. Will you not listen to reason on this PrBeacon? Cetamata (talk) 07:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, tell us what your idea of resolution is.

Because since September 2009 you've stuffed this article with bogus research and industry doublespeak, claimed naivete about wiki policies until and unless they serve your purposes, reverted other editors attempting to restore balance, and argued your worldview with anyone who's bothered to join the discussion. PrBeacon (talk) 07:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That's just a flat out lie. I've added more history than anything else to this article and the detailed information I've included about JARPA, JARPA II, JARPN and JARPN II came from the IWC. Not Japan. Not Protesters. You'll notice I also included documented "objections" from the IWC scientific committee. You'll also notice there is a huge section for opposition and controversy.

Read just a little further up and you will see links to protesters, whalers, governments, news media and even an encyclopedia that refers to the whaling as "Research Whaling" or "Scientific Whaling". So explain to me exactly how all of those entities are expressing an unbalanced pro-whaling POV. Cetamata (talk) 08:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps you lot could use WP:DR, ie seek third opinions, or post a message to a relevant Wikiproject to seek fresh eyes? These sort of actions are likely to assist in resolution where things are stagnant. NJA (t/c) 08:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any point in continuing to contribute to this article. I've been attacked for supposedly giving too much weight to controversy, then science, now language and even titles. All because of other opinionated editors who like to link WP policies as if they're a higher authority while occasionally leveling personal attacks. I don't see an end to it other than to walk away. Cetamata (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

When were you attacked? The only personal attack I see here is yours just now [32]. Your edits and arguments are what I've questioned. Others may disagree but I think it's reasonable to bring up POV issues when the contributions seem one-sided. As the arguments continued, at some point you personalized the dispute, imo. And you still haven't said what your idea of a resolution is, other than continuing to argue for leaving the titles as unqualified Research. PrBeacon (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The resolution is you accept that the term "Research Whaling" is the most commonly used term and does not imply "proven research" lending undue weight as you continue to assert OR accept a suitable replacement as suggested above like "Special Permit Whaling" (despite that the IWC calls it "scientific permit whaling"). The words "Scientific Research" can be replaced with "Research Programs" which again refers to the existence of JARPA, JARPA II, JARPN and JARPN II without suggesting any proven theories and therefore without adding undue weight. Cetamata (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

In fact there is another suggestion from a third party. Although it is not entirely accurate you could also replace "Scientific Research" with "Lethal Research Programs". Cetamata (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

What about this? Cetamata (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Change "Research Whaling" to "Scientific Permit Whaling" (That's what the IWC calls it) in the history section - only indicates that Japan is using a science permit and doesn't establish validity of research.

• Change "Scientific Research" to "Whaling Programs" for the JARPA/JARPN sections - the section is only intended to describe details of each program anyway.

Unsourced Statement: potential unintended bias resulting therein

As a disclaimer, I am new to discussions here. If I have done (or do) anything offensive by my wording or method of posting my observation, it is certainly unintentional and I would welcome advice so that I may implement appropriate changes.

In the World War II section, when discussing Japan post-surrender, it was stated that General Douglas MacArthur encouraged "Japan to continue whaling in order to provide a cheap source of meat to starving people (and millions of dollars in oil for the USA and Europe)." I do not dispute the claim made. However, I think it appropriate to discuss the source material referenced to support the claim.

If you wish to peruse the source before focusing your no-doubt enraptured attention on the rest of my discussion, I have provided it at the bottom of my post.

I found that the source material appears to be an opinion piece posted on an Australian news site. Insofar as the source article has no source material or peer-review to bolster its own claims, I object that it is improper to engage in what is essentially the transitioning of opinion from an opinion post to an encyclopedia. My recommendation is that more substantial source material should be provided to uphold the statement of US profit, or else the statement should be removed until such time as a source may be provided.

Further, I recommend that an additional source be provided which upholds the historical accuracy of the events surrounding MacArthur's authorization of Japanese whaling. Perhaps a news article from the period, or even a book discussing the events in post-war Japan which references such an article. To be clear, I am after something concrete, or at least some text tied to a documentation, or statement of events from the time period in which we are claiming the events happened. I contend that a referenced or researched piece will more broadly support historical accuracy of the section as a whole.

If I have made the mistake of not providing potential sources to replace the source which I deem defunct, please forgive me, as I am but a babe in the discussion community. Le tme know, and I will do what I can to find something relevant.

Here is the link to the source used: http://www.theage.com.au/news/climate-watch/blame-general-macarthur-for-whaling-row/2007/12/18/1197740272644.html

Bluegrassgemini (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I can and will provide an additional reference. In fact Men & Whales by Richard Ellis (also cited) is one of several books that mention this. At the earliest opportunity I will add additional citations to resolve this. Cetamata (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Quoted from Men & Whales by Richard Ellis, page 405 - "With the Japanese surrender on August 14, 1945, General Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Allied Commander, decreed that the Japanese ought to be encouraged to commence whaling again in order to provide much-needed meat for the vanquished and starving people. (This arrangement was not as altruistic as it appears on its face; while the Japanese were to get the meat, the Americans were to get whale oil.)" Cetamata (talk) 03:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for responding promptly and thoroughly. I think that the additional reference would help very much. Now, perhaps, a stylistic comment. If you were to take the comment about US profit out of parentheses, and adjust it into its own sentence, I think that such a move would lend the statement greater credibility, as relevant in itself rather than merely an aside. Other than that, cheers! Bluegrassgemini (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Ady Gil incident

I find this paragraph: On January 6, 2010, the anti-whaling ship Ady Gil suffered severe damage to its bow after a collision with the Japanese whaling ship Shōnan Maru No. 2, and was abandoned, leaking oil by the Sea Shepherds.[134] Video footage of the incident was taken by both a crew member of the Shonan Maru No. 2 and Sea Shepherd members on board the Bob Barker and posted on YouTube. A wake and "prop wash" can clearly be seen behind the Ady Gil, as it accellerates into the Shonan Maru No. 2[135] Very one sided, the video also shows the Shounen maru #2 making a hard to starboard to deliberately close distance (which is illegal as they were not in the right of way) to the Ady. I think it should be mentioned in it as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.152.215 (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That line doesn't seem to come from the source that is given as a reference, either. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The YouTube stuff also looks like original research. I removed it and resourced the content with reliable sources. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Whaling in Japan

Japan is an Island on which whales can not live in significant quantity Japanese whaling is not done in Japan, shouldn't it be referred to as Whaling By Japan or Japanese Whaling? Just Curious Scottprovost (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You have a good point there. STSC (talk) 11:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

Japan is being taken to International Court of Justice. Is there a reference to this? Isn't this a major part of the story? (203.45.194.193 (talk) 09:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC))

A crazed homeless guy taking the President to court over alien implants is no more notable than that. Japan isn't doing anything illegal, as everyone with even the most basic knowledge of international laws understands. 124.150.47.60 (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane

This is not a forum for the discussion of whether Japan is doing anything illegal.

If you don't have the answer to the above questions on the article then please keep quiet. STSC (talk) 11:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it's not necessarily a major part of the story unless Japan changes its whaling practices as a result of the ICJ case - which hasn't actually started yet. However, this could be mentioned in the opposition section. Cetamata (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Sea Shepherd Conservation Society ?

This particular group seems to be mentioned over and over again in this article while names of other groups are glossed over. It almost comes across as a clever advert for this organization. I do not know enough about the subject to apply a tag to the article but the name is written and linked in almost every section.(Drn8 (talk) 06:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC))

Apparently Sea Shepherd is mentioned once in the history section for a specific and historically significant incident in the 1970s. Then mentioned once again in the production section which, while applicable, is not necessarily appropriate because there is a section specifically for the details of opposition. Then the group is mentioned many times in the opposition section which is appropriate considering the number and notoriety of incidents involving this particular group. However, the entire opposition section is, in my opinion, in dire need of restructuring and editing - Not necessarily because this group is mentioned more than others. I disagree with the clever advert observation. I think the group is just visible to many editors due to its current media exposure. Cetamata (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Removal of a quote by User:STSC

STSC removed a quote saying "maintaining NPOV - not to quote directly from the disputants". However the statement is attributed to Hideki Moronuki per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and properly quoted per WP:QUOTE. If there is a rational reason to remove the quote, pleae explain it. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Please refer to NPOV - Impartial tone. Since there's a dispute on whether Japan had offered to pay for the Solomon Islands' delegates, further quoting directly from Japan would be POV pushing. STSC (talk) 07:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry I cannot understand your rationale. I don't think it is not impartial to refute the allegation with a reason why the allegation is groundless. Your edit removed all the reason for the denial leaving only a description that the whaling chief denied the allegation. I think your edit is NOT impartial at all. Please note it is irrelevant whether the reason is given with a direct quote or an indirect quote. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You may describe the reasons given by the Japanese in a summary, but not in a direct quote. I just followed Wikipedia's advice not to quote directly from the disputants to maintain impartial tone. STSC (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I know you dislike a direct quote for no good reason seeing the edit to Whaling controversy .[33] However as I said above it is irrelevant whether the reason is given with a direct quote or an indirect quote. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I shall repeat: I followed Wikipedia's advice not to quote directly from the disputants for the reason of impartial tone. STSC (talk) 10:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't care you repeat millions of time. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I do care to maintain impartial tone in Wiki articles. Thank you. STSC (talk) 11:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I do also care to maintain impartial tone in Wiki articles. Thank you. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

So, you agree to the removal of the direct quotes from the Japanese then. STSC (talk) 11:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

{Outdent} You re-read above discussion carefully before you insist a ridiculous claim. If you wish to change the description, please provide a persuasive discussion. Otherwise, no one will care your post here anymore.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The edit in dispute removes much of the following:

'Hideki Moronuki, the whaling chief at Japan's Fisheries Agency, denied the allegation saying, "There is no truth to it." He further stated that "Sikua may have confused the London meet with a seminar last week in Tokyo to which Japan invited delegates from 12 developing nations that have recently joined or are considering joining the IWC. Japan sometimes holds small seminars on whaling and invites delegates from countries. I wonder if Mr Sikua mixed up such seminars and IWC meetings,"

Looking over the text, it does seem that in this quote the whaling chief is making a statement of opinion to discredit his accusers rather than a statement of fact. STSC may be justified in removing the direct quote. It may be sufficient and neutral to simply state an allegation was made and then denied. Cetamata (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Cetamata, before expressing your opinion, you should have read WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV a relevant policy which I presented above. It says "Biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution." The statement "Japan had offered to pay for the country's delegates to attend the March 6, 2008 IWC meeting in London." is an opinion expressed by Solomon Islands' Prime Minister and may not be a fact. Also the direct quote is an opinion expressed by the whaling chief and may not be a fact. So both statements are attributed to the two disputants. If there were a policy prohibiting to present an opinion, the statement of Prime minister should also be removed. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate to document that Sikua, PM of the Solomon Islands, alleged that Japan offered to pay for the attendance of the island nation's IWC officials and Japan's representative, Moronuki, denied the allegations, suggesting the PM was confused -- leaving direct quotes out of it entirely -- supplying the facts. Cetamata (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, this piece of the citation appears to have been left out... Moronuki claims the Sikua confused the IWC meet with another meeting in Tokyo, "But the Japanese foreign ministry, which organised the seminar, said the Solomon Islands was not even invited." http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gETk0rJzQZ9zMND1Dg58gAc1XKxQ Cetamata (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Cetamata, thank you for your comment. According to your comment, Moronuki's refutation doesn't make sense. So I decided to remove the direct quote by him. I will also change the disputant from "Moronuki" to "a Japanese foreign ministry official". ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Removal of an Andrew Darby article and content

I removed some content that was sourced from an article by Andrew Darby. I’m familiar with this author. He puts out a high volume of newspaper articles and columns on the topic of whaling, and is decidedly biased in favour of Sea Shepherd and against whaling. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 14:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This is what you removed -- New regulations from the United Nations International Maritime Organization took effect in July 2011 and made it illegal for the Nisshin Maru to operate below 60 degrees south but all of the Japanese pelagic whaling is done inside the area. The new rules prohibit ships using heavy oil in the Antarctic Treaty System area because of the harm a spill would cause. Furthermore, the IMO's Guidelines For Ships Operating In Ice-Covered Waters put requirements on safety and hull-strength which the Nisshin Maru does not fulfill. -- If the IMO regulations are, in fact, real as mentioned in the article then how can you justify removing it all as 'biased'? It is not enough to simply claim you don't like a source or you feel a source is biased. If the information is factual then it can be included in the article. Cetamata (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, Darby is not the only source for this information. Would you like to have additional citations that confirm it when I re-add this to the article? Cetamata (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a good plan, otherwise someone may just delete it again if it's only sourced to someone that some editors consider controversial. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 20:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

MfD of source list

FYI

 – Just a pointer to a relevant deletion discussion

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:JB50000/reference list. Someone who edits this article should volunteer at that MfD to have the now-orphaned list of references on this topic userspaced to their own username so it's not just deleted before the useful stuff in it can be used to improve this article. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 20:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead photo caption

Original caption:

Minke Whales, including a 1-year-old calf, being loaded aboard a Japanese factory ship, the Nisshin Maru. This photograph was taken in the Southern Ocean by agents from the Oceanic Viking, an Australian Customs and Border Protection Service vessel, during a 2008 surveillance mission. The sign above the slipway reads, "Legal research under the ICRW".

With the comment, "resized an image ...[and] Removed an excessive caption per WP:CAPTION", the pic was reduced to default size (250px), and the caption was reduced to:

Minke Whales being loaded aboard a Japanese factory ship, the Nisshin Maru.

In retrospect, I completely agree (and apologize) that 500px was way too big for the picture, and also agree that the caption was too lengthy and needed a good trim. However, I believe the above edit has swung the pendulum too far in the opposite direction, under the guise of "succinctness". The photo tells a much more complex and engaging story than "whales being loaded on a ship", but without a meaningful caption, and at 250px, the reader will never know that. Perhaps that was the intent of the edit...?

Since WP:CAPTION was cited, please note the following excerpts (emphasis added):

• Most captions draw attention to something in the image that is not obvious, such as its relevance to the text. Captions can consist of a few words of description, or several sentences.
• There are several criteria for a good caption. A good caption:

1. clearly identifies the subject of the picture, without detailing the obvious.
2. is succinct.
3. establishes the picture's relevance to the article.
4. provides context for the picture.
5. draws the reader into the article.

• Links to relevant sections within the article may help draw the reader in.
• Though succinctness is not the same as brevity, ... More than three lines of text in a caption may be distracting. Sometimes increasing the pixel width of the image brings better balance: superfluous wording can also be removed from the caption instead. Save some information for the image description page, and put other information in the article itself, but make sure the reader does not miss the essentials in the picture.

Now, having said that, I've offered the following caption in compromise:

A whale and calf being loaded aboard a factory ship, the Nisshin Maru. The sign above the slipway reads, "Legal research under the ICRW". Australia released this photo to challenge that claim.

With that, I hope to present a more neutral POV than my original caption, while remaining succinct, informative and engaging. The text of the sign is notable but definitely not obvious, plus it's relevant to the text, as it presents the crux of Japan's justification for whaling in the Southern Ocean. The calf is certainly notable but not obvious, and it relates to Australia's opposition, which is itself notable and relevant to establish the conflict; the section link may help to draw the reader into the article. Finally, there is an enormous amount of white space at the top right of the article, due to the length of the TOC. By increasing the image width to 350px, the caption stays at 3 lines of text, and the image becomes more informative and aesthetically balanced. Grolltech (talk) 22:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You should read carefully WP:IMGSIZE. It says "Lead images should usually be no wider than "300px". Furthermore Recent use of mobile device, there is no reason to insist to extend the default size in a display 220 pixels. You should read this article with mobile device how the image is distractive with a large image size. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I missed that guideline before.... so, since I was last at 350px, you've stayed with 250px, and WP:IMGSIZE says 300px, we are ready to compromise at 300px, per WP:IMGSIZE and WP:CAPTION, yes? It's settled? I've made the change, and it looks very good on my 4 year-old cellphone, and even better on my friends' phones. Thanks, Groll†ech (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Research outcomes

The Japanese claim their whaling activities are legitimate because they undertake it for the purpose of research. Given the scale of their operations, involving the slaughter of 4500 whales, we would expect a cornucopia of research findings. Is it true that this massive research undertaking has resulted in nothing really, apart from noting that the whales lost 9% of their blubber over the period the Japanese were hunting them down? --Epipelagic (talk) 07:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Mercury content

The ICR mercury page lists the mercury content of the tissues, but the google translation that I use doesn't provide any units. I'm dubious of the source in the article, because rorqual's are fairly low on the food chain and shouldn't be bioaccumulating too much, but without units I can't tell what the ICR (who definitely have the samples) agree or disagree. --Opcnup (talk) 08:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

It's PPM (Parts Per Million) Undeadplatypus (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Contradictory?

Isn't Japan's defense of it's whaling as "cultural" contradictory to it's arguments that the whaling is research? (Undeadplatypus (talk) 02:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC))

Article name?

The majority of the article is about whaling by Japan (or Japanese organisations), not whaling in Japan, the title is a bit misleading. Views on moving and/or splitting? (I think this is a purely editorial issue and should not be controversial with respect to your view on whaling itself, but I could well be wrong.) --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a fair point and I think a title change is reasonable. However, I am not an expert on the topic and there may be a significance attached to the article's present title that I am unaware of.--Soulparadox (talk) 09:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The title is fine because the processing of the catches is done in Japan. STSC (talk) 10:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

"Whaling" does not mean "final processing of whale meat", and even if it did, most of the article isn't about processing of whale meat, it's about catching of whales, which is not done in Japan. Even the processing happens partly onbaord the factory ships rather than after they get back to land. The subject of the article, as far as I can tell, is "hunting of whales by Japanese organisations and processing of the killed whales". The subject is delimited by the nationality of the perpetrators, not the location of the activities. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

STSC, is there a reason you think, for example, "Japanese whaling" would be a less appropriate title than "Whaling in Japan"? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

"Japanese whaling" seems to me it's about the ways the Japanese hunt the whales? The title "Whaling in Japan" has been stable for a long time and it sounds more inclusive which really means the "issues of whaling in Japan" (in my opinion). STSC (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Whaling in Japan" can be considered a succinct way of saying "Whaling by organizations in Japan" or "Issues of whaling in Japan". A google search for either "Japanese Whaling" or "Whaling in Japan" returns the page as the first non-news hit. I agree with STSC that "The title "Whaling in Japan" has been stable for a long time", and the title should remain unchanged. Sushilover2000 (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • "Whaling in Japan" is not a succinct way of representing Japanese whaling in Australian or Antarctic waters; it's misleading and inaccurate. I don't see the harm in moving to a title like "Whaling by Japanese vessels", which is not too long yet covers the full scope of a global whaling enterprise which is not restricted to Japan's territorial waters. Shrigley (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

"Whaling by Japanese vessels" seems like a good choice at this stage.--Soulparadox (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

There's a book actually with the same title Whaling in Japan (by Jun Morikawa) which commentates on the issues of whaling in Japan. I think most readers would see the "Whaling in Japan" as "whaling policy in Japan" rather than "catching whales inside Japan". STSC (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think the following statement is not necessarily the case: "I think most readers would see the "Whaling in Japan" as "whaling policy in Japan" rather than "catching whales inside Japan". Without actually conducting research, I am more inclined to think that the general population would consider the title "Whaling in Japan" in reference to an article on the act of whaling in the geographical location of Japan.--Soulparadox (talk) 23:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

"Whaling in Japan" seems fine to me, though the article could possibly be called the "Whaling industry in Japan". The article includes issues such as political and cultural attitudes towards whaling within Japan, international reactions to Japanese behaviour and the Japanese whale market, and covers much more than just "whaling by Japanese vessels". A name change here would have repercussions elsewhere, as there is a series of other article titled "Whaling in <Country>". "Whaling in Japan" is about the whaling industry in Japan, and could be viewed as a subarticle to Fishing industry in Japan. There is also a series of other articles titled "Fishing industry in <Country>", and a name change to the whaling articles could have repercussions there. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate both sides of the arguments raised. Epipelagic's argument in analogy to "Fishing industry in X" is compelling, but the problem is that "whaling", in contemporary English, has evolved from its old meaning of "the whaling industry" to "killing whales", in the same way that there is a difference between "fishing" and the "fishing industry". I would expect the "Fishing industry in England" article to cover activities of all fishing vessels based in England, wherever they operate, but I would expect "Fishing in England" to cover where is the best place to catch a fish within England except that we don't have such an article, a bit like "weather in London" I suppose.

In the same way, because "whaling" now means just "killing whales", "whaling in Japan" becomes misleading. What about "Whaling industry in X"? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree "Whaling industry in X" is perhaps the better title. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

"Whaling industry in Japan" is not a very common phrase to describe whaling in Japan. In fact, the term "whaling industry" is used only once in the Whaling Wikipedia page and that is in a ICRW quote. The term "whaling industry" is used only twice on the History of Whaling page. I prefer plain speech, stability and conciseness, so I prefer "Whaling in Japan". If broad support is reached on this page for "Whaling industry in Japan", this argument should be put forward on all the other "Whaling in X" Talk pages to maintain consistency. If strong consensus across all the talk pages was reached, I could be persuaded that "Whaling industry in X" is OK.--Sushilover2000 (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Accuracy matters as well, not just "plain speech, stability and conciseness". If a name change were to be made, an appropriate place for a consensus would be WikiProject Cetaceans, not the talk pages of every "Whaling industry in X" article. However, I don't think the issue is particularly worth bothering with, as most readers are not really going to be mislead by the current title. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

"Whaling in Japan" is the widely used common name for "whaling issues in Japan", you should not read it literally. Please look at these examples: WDC and OPS. STSC (talk) 12:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I came here to address the same thing. I've usually seen it as Japanese whaling, but all our articles are like [Whaling in Norway], whaling in [Western Australia] so these would have to be changed to. the reedman (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be moved to "Japanese whaling". Above STSC says '"Japanese whaling" seems to me it's about the ways the Japanese hunt the whales?'. YES! This is about the ways and whys and hows of the Japanese people hunting whales. It is about the role of whaling in the culture, how it became tradition, and the transition to modernised whaling practises and the conflict with international whale protection measures. fwiw, even with the recent International Court of Justice decision, I dont like using 'whaling industry' in the title of this article or others, as it prejudices the reader to thinking the whaling is done for industry/commercial/financial reasons only, rather than having deep cultural roots. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Use in schools

Two sections in this article suggest that whale meat has been removed from school lunch programs, while one section suggests that it is served in schools. It was used a lot in school lunches after WWII, then dwindled substantially from the 1960s through 2005, when the government promoted its reintroduction to public schools as sharp increases in whaling led to a glut of meat that exceeded market demand. There are numerous articles about this, for example:

Whale Meat Back on School Lunch Menus Japan Times, 2010-Sep-05. "Of about 29,600 public elementary and junior high schools nationwide offering lunches for students, 5,355 schools, or 18 percent, responded they had served whale meat in their lunches at least once in fiscal 2009 through March 2010...."

Japan Subsidy for Whaling Is Challenged NY Times, 2013-Feb-06. "...announce a plan last year to cut costs by reducing the annual catch and to sell more whale meat directly to schools for lunches."

In the section World War II, the Wikipedia article currently says "Other meats became more popular into the 1970s and whale meat was removed from school menus.[37]", citing the book "Whaling in Japan: Power, Politics, and Diplomacy." That book also correctly points out the 2005 act that reinstated whale meat's widespread inclusion in public school lunches: "In order to popularize the consumption of whale meat, the ICR is providing whale meat to schools at a discount in consideration of the limited food budgets of public schools." I'd suggest extending the sentence with ", until its widespread reintroduction in 2005." I also don't think it was ever completely removed from all Japanese school lunch menus, but I'm not able to locate a source for that.

In the section "Cultural Aspects, the Wikipedia article currently says "A professor of environmental studies in Japan wrote in his book that Japan's modern commercial whaling bears little resemblance to the small-scale subsistence whaling that, until the dawn of the 20th century, was limited to certain coastal regions, and Japan's whale-eating culture was also very limited in scope and an invented tradition, only lasting 20 years from the end of World War II to the early 1960s to augment Japanese school lunch programs during the U.S. occupation." The intent is a little unclear, but that seems to suggest that there isn't a whale-eating culture any more, whereas people clearly are still eating whale meat. If the suggestion is that 1945-1960s was period upon which the "cultural tradition" is based, and that whale eating after that is not part of that same tradition, that's arbitrary, with no objective, factual basis. While the claim is prefaced with essentially "one guy said this," it's paraphrased, lacks context, and doesn't seem like it meets the standards for inclusion in Wikipedia.

71.238.69.41 (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I also agree that the professor's comment should be removed. It has always struck me more as an opinion, a POV assertion, to downplay the historical preence of whaling, and included as an argument against the whaling advocates' assertion that whaling is an expression of Japanese culture. - Boneyard90 (talk) 07:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)