Talk:Whale/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

First paragraph of whale page

The first paragraph of the whale page is factually inaccurate and incoherent. Dolphins and porpoises certainly are whales (memebers of the orders Cetacea), and belong to the family Delphinidae. There is no scientific contradiction between referring to killer whales as whales or dolphins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.102.116 (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Do you have any citation for this? Chrisrus (talk) 05:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph is simply someone trying to force his opinion on the community. I rarely see in a Wikipedia article a definition of what something is not, especially not in the opening paragraph. Dolphins belong to the order "Odontoceti." Odonto refers to having teeth. Think "orthodontist," and "ceti" meaning "whale," as in "cetacean." Toothed-whale. Another noted member of this suborder is the Sperm Whale. Here's a nice children's educational page that addresses this very question: http://www.ftexploring.com/askdrg/askdrgalapagos4.html. In addition, this very site explains the term Odontoceti, which included Dolphins, Porpoises, Orcas, and pilot whales. Say good night, Gracie. PatrickLMT (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

As that link says, "some people say dolphins are whales and some people seem to say dolphins are not whales. It is common for even scientists to separate these marine mammals into whales, porpoises, and dolphins (in fact this seems to be the norm)." "Cetacean" is a precise scientific term that includes dolphins and porpoises; "whale" is an imprecise term that is often used to distinguish other cetaceans from dolphins and porpoises. As the American Cetacean society, who ought to know, put it: "The terms "whales", "dolphins", and "porpoises", are not scientific and have been used interchangeably throughout history. Usually the term "whale" is used to describe a large cetacean whereas smaller cetaceans are usually called dolphins or popoises"[1]. So it would be wrong of us to assert in the article that dolphins and porpoises definitely are whales, just as it would be wrong to assert that they aren't.VoluntarySlave (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This is very interesting and may be potentially significant. Any article about "whales" should explain as much as you two have pointed out here. I understand and can sympathize with each of the ways of looking at this situation. However, I think that something complicated and maybe not fully described is at work here. I don't think a giant dolphin or a tiny whale would be confused by an informed layperson with whales or dolphins. There seems to be not only size at work but also a complicated confluence of ratios of this part to that one, specifically something to do with the head, which in one definition of "whale" was referred to as "broad". A similar problem exists at Vulture, where no feature other than the featherless heads or patches had been identified as what sets those birds apart from all other diernal birds of prey. Yet when we experienced English-speaking people see the profile of vultures at rest or in flight, they identify them by some cognative process which may not have yet been nomified and seems to have something to do with the shape ratios of the wings and tail and other parts. Chrisrus (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, our objections may not be so much with this article but with the scientific community for not having fully thought these things through, leaving behind such glaring problems such as, according to different understandings:

1. Belugas are whales, yet pilot whales not.

2. Dolphins are whales.

3. Whales could never be small.

None of these things sastisfy me. Eventually, someone will get a prize for doing the math and letting us know what it is within our brains that immediately can tell a dolphin from a whale with one glance at the profile. I hope that person will be a Wikipedian or influenced by the problems which we have found.

I have identified a series of these items, let me know if you are interested. Chrisrus (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

VolunteerSlave, here's more from that link: "These dolphins belong to the suborder Odontoceti, which means they are "toothed whales". Other toothed whales include sperm whales (the biggest), beaked whales, bottlenose whales, porpoises, beluga whales, narwhals, river dolphins, pygmy sperm whales, and dwarf sperm whales." And on the tail end of the quote you extracted: "And sometimes the same people who say, or at least imply, that dolphins and porpoises are not whales will turn right around and tell you that dolphins are members of the "toothed whale" club (club is not an official science word), or more correctly, the suborder "Odontoceti". And so the confusion starts. Apparently they are "toothed whales" but not whales!?"

I changed the part where you said that whale sometimes refers to the larger species. I don't think size is what causes people to distinguish dolphins and porpoises from the whale definition. After Narwhals are about the size of dolphins but no one disputes they're whales. Also, the nonsense I removed suggested that killer whales and pilot whales aren't whales, and they're much larger than Narwhals and belugas. I think it's recognition, honestly. So I changed it to say that just certain members of the delphinidae family, such as dolphins and porpoises, are sometimes excluded. And I left it at that. I think it works that way.

As for why I objected to it the way I found it...cetacean comes from the word "cetus" and means "whale" and dolphins belong to this category, like it or not. Moreover, as I pointed out, the suborder Odontoceti, which means "toothed whale," includes dolphins and porpoises. If you're going to insist that Odontoceti should be removed from the whale category, Sperm Whales, Narwhals, Beluga, etc., are all suddenly not whales. (And anyone with even a passing familiarity with these creatures will say you're out of your freaking mind if you try to tell them that.)

I think if people look at this objectively, they'll see that they're arguing their prejudice, not any valid scientific argument. Regarding the claim that we could look at a profile of a dolphin and a whale and immediately tell them apart, I don't think we could. Look up beaked whales, then look up oceanic dolphins and look at all the images from links on those pages. You'll see what I mean.

The only other thing I fixed when I first got here was the reference to the blue whale as the largest animal currently living. It's actually the largest animal to have ever existed, not just in this day and age. PatrickLMT (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph should simply mention it is a common name. Besides the examples given, contemplate the nomenclature of Southern Right Whale Dolphin or another another 15 ton grey oceanic fish-shaped organism, the whale shark. The first three sections blather on as if 'whale' is a biological concept, the first paragraph should explain it is no such thing. That it pluralises the title is the first clue that it is blissfully going to dodge the following:

• Whale is a common name for marine mammals in the order Cetacea.

— cygnis insignis 16:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have some evidence that it is not biological concept? What marine biologist has claimed this much? As a matter of fact, there are scads of websites, including those linked to the this article and the articles I mentioned, that treat "whale" as a biological concept. The two examples you provided do not suggest otherwise, as "whale" is not the defining term, which is "dolphin" and "shark" respectively. Although I do like your sample sentence, and replaced the original opening statement with it. PatrickLMT (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

If you mean reliable souces, of course. One who took time out from doing marine biology, I suppose. Ref #1 says The terms "whales", "dolphins", and "porpoises", are not scientific and have been used interchangeably throughout history. We are aware of which part is a modifier because we speak this language and are familiar with the conventions surrounding these ambiguous, not defining, terms; Lissodelphis has a characteristic that happens to be found in Eubalaena, but they are also called right-whale porpoise. I like it too, I think it will help.. cygnis insignis 19:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I added the first sentence, and I feel the rest of the paragraph does a fair job of explaining that the term "whale" is ambiguous and is sometimes used to refer to the larger cetaceans, to the exclusion of the smaller. It also distinguishes between the term "whale" and "cetacean," about which there is no argument. I have reservations about the source you quote. Dolphin, Porpoise, and Whale have hardly been used interchangeably. I can accept the fact that dolphins and porpoises have been called "whales," because technically, that's what they are. I have never heard of a humpback whale referred to as a porpoise, however. Although I remember doing a double take when my local paper ran something like "...of course, a killer whale is really a big dolphin rather than a small whale." Oy.

I also take issue with the idea the "whale" and "shark" are not defining terms. A blue whale and a blue shark are not the same thing. The point being is that the recognized names include "shark" and "whale" as their defining terms.PatrickLMT (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It's quite good. Ditto. I believe it is self evident, having to look no further than the first reference in the article was a reasonable indication of this. Provide a better ref. They have, sailors and whalers attributed these haphazardly, it has nothing to do systematics. The word 'whale' is "technically" a common name and has little correlation to biological nomenclature, examples of this abound and it demonstrates the coherence of the accepted system. No, me either. They can say what they like ;-)

Oh? No, probably not. The example was "dolphin" and "shark", the ability of any of them to define is ad hoc, unsystematic and redundant. cygnis insignis 10:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Intro

Yes, I know it still needs work, but I don't see you helping. (Or do I?) I think it's shaping up nicely, though, if I do say so myself. Chrisrus (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You think? I think it's getting worse. People are still thrusting their prejudices upon the definition of the term, not even attempting to get a consensus. PatrickLMT (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, let's work together:

"Whale is the common name for many marine mammals of the order Cetacea."

Ok, you say that they are actually all whales, but we're just talking about the common name, but we immediately point that out:

"The remaining cetaceans, the dolphins, porpoises, and killer whales, while not commonly thought of as "whales" in English, are actually members of toothed whales according to current taxonomy. "

So while we acknowledge the common names, we point out that there really is no point on the contiuum between spearm whale to porpoise that draws a clear line between them. So the common word, perhaps incorrectly, draws a distinction that taxologically isn't really there. This is not pushing either the common name-based definition of "whale" or the taxonomic definition. But if this article is not going to be merged with Cetacea, then what is it's purpose? What is the nature and scope of the article, why don't we just delete it and redirect to Cetacea? We do not because of this very fact: that the English language contains this word "whale" as distinct from dolphin or porpoise. This article has to be about, at least to some extent, the word.

It is my sincere hope that see me now as not trying to thrust my prejudices upon the definition of the term, and that you see that I am attempting to get a concensus. Chrisrus (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Before my Wikipedia entry gets canceled (at my request), I think what you have the best opening paragraph so far. In fact, I think it's great as is. What you say above, however, should definitely not make it to the article. "The remaining cetaceans, the dolphins, porpoises and killer whales, while not commonly thought of as whales..." Says who? Speaking for myself, I've always thought of killer whales as whales for a variety of reasons, while not always thinking of dolphins and porpoises in such a way. Most conspicuously, the name. Then there is the fact that they are larger than dolphins. Then there is their reputation, perhaps undeserved, but they didn't get the name killer whale because people thought of them as Flipper's big brother. I'm suggesting that it's not so evenly divided as you think. I can't believe I'm the only person in the world who has to stretch their preconceived ideas to include dolphins and porpoises as whales, but has no trouble at all thinking of killer whales as whales.

For this reason, I think what we have is perfect now. It doesn't name the specific names.

On the other hand, perhaps redirecting to cetacean isn't such a bad idea. As someone above points out, whale is not a scientific term anyway.

And with that, farewell, Wikipedia. Long may you continue to provide fun, confusion and useful information...but without my input. PatrickLMT (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Geez, thanks a lot!

But why are you leaving? (I hope it wasn't something I said!)

But hey, you bring up a good point, and it got me thinking about when I read the intro aloud to someone and I noticed that they kind of got turned off by the Greek names.

I ask any reader of these words to agree that there is no need to use words "Odontoceti" and "Mysticeti" in the intro, so long as we hyperlink toothed whale and baleen whale, and then use them well in the article below the intro.

Before you react, as I know already that there are those who generally encourage such terms, please re-read the article while bearing in mind these two things: one, how it would sound to the average reader that way; and 2, Patrick's last words on the subject: "whale is not a scientific term anyway." Chrisrus (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

When I said "whale is not a scientific term," I was paraphrasing Chrisrus, who pointed out that the term "whale" is not a biological term. But in any case, nothing you said prompted my departure. Please don't feel that way at all. I've just come to realize, like it says on my talk page (they'll delete my User Page for me, but for some reason, talk pages are not removed), I have as much right to be editing an Encyclopedia as I have to perform neurosurgery (which is to say, none at all). My work is atrocious and my edits are worse. So, continue your efforts to attain excellence. I will pursue excellence in areas which I qualify. (And my conclusions have nothing whatsoever to do with this page.) PatrickLMT (talk) 00:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

People like whales

Must we cite the statement "many people like whales"? If so, what sort of citation would be appropriate. Chrisrus (talk) 04:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

We better delete that.-- Matthead  Discuß   05:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Why? Chrisrus (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This conversation is continued on Matthead's talk page, and also here below:Chrisrus (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Because it's a relatively meaningless value-judgement. Much better is the sentence that has now replaced this statement, referring to organisations set up to protect whales, with an appropriate citation. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 13:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we were writing the last sentence of the intro to an article on pandas, we might want to include the fact that they are one of the most popular animals, as that objective statement is one of the most important things one could say about them and seems like a nice way to conclude a panda article intro. You probably wouldn't, however, want to end by saying "there are several pro-panda groups", as that might be a statement better used to introduce a section explaining about the groups.

You are correct, however, to state that the newer version is a better summary of what the citations say. Please keep in mind, however, why that is so. What happened here was this: the original statement to the effect of "whales are quite popular among humans", which I wrote, was, quite bizzarely to my mind, hit with a "citation needed" tag (if that needs a cite, what doesn't?) and then someone, not me, added those citations in an effort to satisfy those objections. Then someone saw that and checked out the citations and wrote a good summary of them, leaving the intro ending in a way that never seemed to be anyone's idea of the best way to round it out. I, blindsided by the fuss, am going to have to think about how to best cite such a statement if I really want to put it back in, (or, barring that, support it better in the main body of the article) so that's why I just deleted the whole thing, at least for now. I hope that you will agree that there is no important reason to end the intro with a mention of the existence of those several pro-whale groups, although it does probably point out a flaw in the article; the whole "pro-whales" phenomenon is given short shrift considering it's significance. Chrisrus (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, you go and find some way of constructing a "people like whales" statement that is suitably objective and supported by a reliable source. Meanwhile, I will reinstate the mention of anti-hunting groups, with the reference. It really doesn't matter by what tortuous route it arived there. It fits in well, it adds useful information, and it is well referenced - so it should be included. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

vandalised

Some idiot has vandalised this article with stupid comments (whilst I've never vandalised an article myself, some vandalisms are funny, though not in this case). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.246.245 (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed [2]. -- Matthead  Discuß   19:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Threats to Whales

Imagine a century ago when parts of the sea teaming with whales. But human intervention changed this. The commercial whaling era killed millions of whales and made them into lubricants, cosmetics, margarine, and meal. Today, the sight of a whale is sporadic at best and totally absent in many locales previously populated by whales. For example :

The Gray whale in the North Atlantic is extinct The Indus Susu, or Indian River dolphin, is barely hanging to its shrunken habitat The European stock of Bowhead whales, between east Greenland and Novaya Zemba, is almost extinct In the Northern Pacific Right whales, the Korean stock of Gray whales, and a small ("cochito") in the Gulf of California may soon be gone No marine species remains unaffected by human activities. A viable population depends on the health of the ecosystem in which it exists, and the many forms of pollution extend to all the world's oceans threatening all species. Low level contamination of the smaller prey species becomes concentrated in the tissue of larger marine predators and apexes in marine mammals. Planktonic organisms are carried great distances by winds and sea currents and larger nektonic creatures travel large expanses of oceans on their own accord. Both carry pesticides, heavy-metals, and disease causing organisms to all sea areas. Contamination levels in seem toothed whales and dolphins are known to be high. How this affects their individual fitness or their ability to reproduce is still largely unknown.

The Beluga whale population of the St. Lawrence in Canada has been declining since protection in 1979.Through autopsies, researches have discovered high concentrations of PCB and DDT which are stored in the fatty tissues of mammals.Dead Belugas have revealed bladder and liver cancer which has never been seen before in marine mammals. Other diseases found in Belugas are hepatitis, splenic tumors, pneumonia, herpes,skin diseases, ulcers and blood poisoning, all which suggest suppression of the immune system.

Toxicologists based in New York have completed research on Elephant seals off Northern California coasts. they have found high levels of coplanar PCBs and skin diseases in this species. Along the west coast of the United States. autopsies of Bottlenose dolphins show high PCB and DDT levels.

In addition to chemical pollution, oil slicks are commonplace in the oceans. Somw whales and dolphins in the Western North Atlantic have been surfacing repeatedly through and oil slicked area.In contrast, Gray whales studies off of the Southern California coast changed their migratory path and their swimming and diving behavior when coming into contact with oil patches from seepage. Thousands of marine mammals are killed annually by gill nets and fish traps., Whaling practices common today in Norway, the Faroe Islands and Japan.

Noise pollution also threatens the existence of cetaceans. Large ships and boats make a tremendous amount of noise that falls into the same frequency range of many whales. This could be a contributing factor to the noticeable shift in the migration route of some California Gray whales. Some are making a detour around the west side of the Channel Islands, possible to avoid the noise pollution os Southern California sea traffic. Recent studies done in Newfoundland reveal that Humpback whales entangled in gill nets have damaged ears. Since sound plays a vital role in the life of whales, dolphins and porpoises, noise pollution must be considered significant, especially when it is of the magnitude of the Governments Ship Shock plans off the Southern California coast which were stopped by Save the Whales, and the poorly planned ATOC tests, watered down only after outraged protests by environmental groups and citizens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.32.240 (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Error in the First Paragraph

A killer whale isn't a whale at all, its actually a dolphin. If you look at the killer whale page on wikipedia, or just click the link from this page it will say that it is commonly mistaken for a whale, but is actually a dolphin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dburf11 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this the line you refer to?: "The term whale is sometimes used to refer to all cetaceans, but in more common English usage it generally excludes the members of the Delphinoidea superfamily, such as dolphins and porpoises.(+cite)"

{{editsemiprotected}}

hyperlink [Indohyus]

 Done Doesn't appear to be extremely important, but doesn't seem to hurt either.-- fetchcomms☛ 04:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrap-up after copyedits

Having completed a run through of the article, I have several comments:

• Whether dolphins and porpoises are whales remains unclear. I left the mess much as it was. Need an expert's guidance. Note that Wikipedia is transitioning from being simply a mirror of other works to influencing them.
• The article is uneven. Weak/missing sections: physiology, migration, life history/relationships, evolution, jaws, flukes, organs, senses, feeding, conservation.
• Given the high flux and slow progress, are we just beating a beached whale? Better to just have this redirect to baleen whale and toothed whale?Lfstevens (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

We can't redirect "whale" to "baleen whale" because that would leave out sperm whales and several other whales. We can't redirect it to "toothed whale" either as that would leave out most whales. Chrisrus (talk) 08:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have answered you own question. There obviously needs to be an article "whale" but we also need to sort out what the proper definition is. Richerman (talk) 11:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean redirect, but make it a disambig page with links to other whale pages (not just those two)? But that's just one solution. The other solution is to make this a great article and resolve the confusion...Lfstevens (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

After spending some hours copy editing and adding references to this article I did add the definition from the Oxford English Dictionary to the lead "whale is the common name for any large fishlike marine mammal of the order Cetacea which have forelimbs modified as fins, a tail with horizontal flukes and nasal openings on top of the head". This was properly cited, but User:Snalwibma saw fit to remove it saying "fishlike was nonsense, and there was too much anatomical detail for the lead sentence". The fact is "whale" is a common name - not a scientific term, so a dictionary definition is the correct way to describe it. If people are going to remove referenced information without discussion this is never going to be a decent article. Richerman (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I stand by my assertion that "fishlike" is unhelpful, and that the definition in question had too much anatomical detail for the lead sentence. This is not a dictionary, it is an encyclopaedia: we are not trying to encapsulate the whole thing in one or two lines, as the dictionary does – we have a whole article in which to explain it. Also, bear in mind WP:COPYVIO – we cannot paste in a definition from the OED wholesale, even if it was appropriate for the purpose (which, IMHO, it isn't). SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The OED says a lot more than that and one sentence is not a copyvio. The fact remains that the lead should begin by describing succinctly what the article is about. Richerman (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, fair enough - but the adjective fishlike smacks of the nineteenth century, and a very old-fashioned view of what a whale is. It may have been appropriate in a dictionary compiled over 100 years ago, but it is not right in a 21st-century encyclopaedia. The resemblance to a fish is tenuous, to put it mildly! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It is the latest version I'm using and they do update it regularly. However, I suppose the definition still works without "fishlike" and there are pictures if anyone is confused :) Richerman (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm still not happy with this. In "the common name for any large marine mammal of the order Cetacea which has forelimbs modified as fins, a tail with horizontal flukes and nasal openings on top of the head" it looks as if "which ..." is introducing a restrictive clause, and therefore that whale denotes only those members of the order Cetacea that have such features. This is wrong. And I still think it's simply too much detail at this point in the article. It's complicated enough trying to explain how whale relates somewhat imperfectly to Cetacea, without further confusing the issue by throwing in some anatomical details that are shared by all members of the order. Better to leave the anatomy for the anatomy section, and here deal only with which of the Cetacea are referred to as "whales". That's the way I see it, anyway. But I'll not change it again for now. Let's see what others think. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Youre right - my mistake. I was in a hurry and I changed it from 'have' to 'has' as it didn't sound quite right when I read it, but that actually changed the meaning of the sentence. It is, of course, a description of Cetacea, not a restrictive clause. The lexicographers who write dictionaries think long and hard about these things and you change them at your peril! I've changed it back but, as you say, let's see what others think. Richerman (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, so the OED isn't authoritative enough. How about the Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals? I'm traveling, but I have the 2nd ed. back at the ranch.Lfstevens (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Richerman (talk) 10:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

How about "roughly fish-shaped"? It's clearly true, a good paraphrase of the source's language ("fishlike"), and gets across a wide range of morphological detail in a quick summary which can be filled out in the body below.Chrisrus (talk) 13:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Use indents to see who was talking here. Someone forgot to sign his/her posts, so you thought I was answering my own question and maybe he or she was me responding to you. Chrisrus (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right - my mistake. I've checked the history and user Lfstevens made the first and third posts but didn't sign either of them - which was what caused my confusion. Go to the bottom of the class young Stevens! Richerman (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops...all signed now. I checked my Encyclopedia of MM, and under Toothed Whales, Overview it says "The toothed whales comprise the suborder Odontoceti....including the true dolphins, ...." So I propose that we decide to include dolphins, porpoises, etc., as whales. OK with everybody?Lfstevens (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Please look above and see the several other such discussions on precisely this that have already been discussed. Your suggestion is to merge this article with cetacea, or to eliminate this artcle and redirect to that article. That may be the best thing to do in this case, but there is no rule that every English word with a biological referent have a perfect scientific synonym. For example, the word English "wolf" excludes, in fact opposes the word "dog" in most contexts, but both are Canis lupus. For example, although the article grey wolf is careful to explain the taxonomic situation, it is full of such statements that obviously exclude dogs as; "wolves have adapted less well than coyotes to life with humans" or "The wolf is extinct in Japan" without having to stop and mention "except the domesticated subspecies". This article is about the referent of the common English word "whale" and should be careful to explain very clearly that, while there is no clear line between such animals as beaked whales and dolphins, the article will not take pains to include the latter. So long as it explains clearly that such animals as orcas can accurately be thought of a simply big dolphins, or dolphins can be said to be simply small toothed whales, that's not what people mean when they usally say "whale" or "dolphin". Again, none of this speaks against your proposal, which is that this article should be redirected to cetacea. It just means that it be done with these facts in mind. Chrisrus (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

baleen whales only have one blow holw duhhhhh stupid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.66.180.253 (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

bad grammar

hi people. you messed up on some grammar. when it says "This suborder includes the blue whale, the humpback whale the bowhead whale and the minke whales.", you need to put a comma in between the humback whale and the bowhead whale. so it should read like this: This suborder includes the blue whale, the humpback whale, the bowhead whale and the minke whales. thanks, and I'd do it myself, but I can't, so you have to do it for me.--72.187.197.196 (talk) 03:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

unicode pictographs

When 6.0 goes final, we might want to mention 🐋 and 🐳. ⇔ ChristTrekker 18:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Language Links

I added language links for Portuguese and German, but now I am not sure they are correct, because I then noticed that the Portuguese page has a link back to Baleen whale, while the German page is a disambiguation page, with the plural form being the actual corresponding to the English page. I am going to revert it, perhaps someone more familiar with the subject could add the proper links.Panglossa | Talk 14:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Can i put this link in whale section?

Can i put this link in whale section?

This link {blocked link redacted by archiver}

I can put this link??

--82.213.169.129 (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• The link is contrary to wikipedia guidelines at WP:EL because:

"It does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article"

It is not in English

The site is not reliably functional (I have visited it several times and it does not always work properly)

The site appears to exist in order to promote a non-neutral point of view (i.e. anti-hunting)

andy (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This IP has spammed this domain across multiple Wikimedia projects and is currently blocked on es.wp and de.wp. As such, this domain is fit only for the spam blacklist (I've already requested blacklisting). MER-C 08:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ambergris?

Hunted for ambergris? I thought the stuff was found floating. -phma

Amber is a gemstone derived from pine resin, and is sometimes found floating; ambergris is a different substance, and is found inside whales. Vicki Rosenzweig

Well, according to the ambergris article it is found floating, and when it's found in the whale it stinks. -phma

.HI Im micheal jackson ://www.dictionary.com/search?q=ambergris dictonary.com]: "A waxy grayish substance formed in the intestines of sperm whales and found floating at sea or washed ashore." -- Zoe It is in sperm. Drink Sperm .whales before they die and floats up later...-Bugsrule

Disambiguation Page

Is it a good idea to make a disambiguation-page, or will a "See Also"-link suffice? By the way, there's some backgroundinfo on the band "Whale" at Yahoo!.

Lists

I added a list of whales

68.169.113.246 Talk to me, 68.169.113.246 My contributions

Bible

The Bible seems to mention whales four times: Genesis 1:21 "And God created great whales" Surprised, I've checked in my own but after reading 3 times, no traces of whales, can someone help me to find one? more clear, Ididn't find hale in my bible of jerusalem..;jonathaneo in fr wikipedia

As it says in the article, you have to look in the King James Version of the Bible to find the whales. Gdr 09:48:09, 2005-08-12 (UTC)

The Book of Jonah (in the King James and some other translations) does not use the word "whale" at all, referring throughout to a "fish" or a "great fish": "Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights." (Jonah 1:17). This detail was used to dramatic effect in Clarence Darrow's cross-examination of fundamentalist William Jennings Bryan in the 1925 Scopes Trial, as depicted in the drama "Inherit the Wind" by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee.

The bible has had to be re-written in English several times because it's so old the language evolved from Old English to Modern Enlgish around it. The original meaning for our word "fish" was "sea creature". You can see traces of this in words like starfish, jellyfish, cuttlefish, and blackfish. Translaters updated the word to "whale" because "fish" was no longer the best translation from the original.

Whale predators

"When seals are not available they will prey upon young walrus and beluga whale, narwhal," - from a WWF link, but Google will find many others. Orcas also attack great whales, especially their calves. They are said to enjoy whale tongue. Sharks also attack whales, and there are many sightings of whales with bites in flippers and flukes.

Acoustic whatt???

The reference to "20000 acoustic watts" should be dropped unless it could be accurately verified. "Acoustic watt" is NOT a commonly used engineering term. Googling "acoustic watt", I find one acoustic watt equal to 105.7dBSPL, 170dB, 0dB, 120dB, 171dB, 120.05dB, and 112dB. A "Watt" carries no such ambiguity, nor does dBA (commonly called "dB") people speak of when referring to loudness. 12:43 2006-07-26.

Whales and Ocean Noise

A paragraph or two needs to be added perhaps with the above title or as part of the Other environmental disturbances to add that the general level of Ocean Noise has increased significantly in the last few decades from shipping to oil rigs and exploration and now we are on the brink of a massive level of development of offshore windfarms which can also contribute to the background levels of noise. See for example [3]

whales

i am having a project,so i need a feature about extinction of whales

Edit request from Zebasz, 23 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The cited source for the blue whale (3) states that it weights up to 150 short tons, roughly 136 metric tons. This article, however, states it weighs up to 150 long tons (170 short tons). Zebasz (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Done Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Whale Pump

Is there some reason this article is closed to editing? I wanted to add a section on Whales ecological role to the marine environment in what is knowns as a "whale pump." Per the sources, "It has a huge positive influence on the productivity of ocean fisheries, Roman and his colleague, James McCarthy from Harvard University, have discovered. Their discovery, published Oct. 11 in the journal PLoS ONE, is what Roman calls a "whale pump." Whales, they found, carry nutrients such as nitrogen from the depths where they feed back to the surface via their feces. This functions as an upward biological pump, reversing the assumption of some scientists that whales accelerate the loss of nutrients to the bottom. And this nitrogen input in the Gulf of Maine is "more than the input of all rivers combined," they write, some 23,000 metric tons each year." Maybe someone can add this or give me rights to edit it. The sources are: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101012101255.htm and http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0013255 Thanks. BernieW650 (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It's protected from edits by unregistered users because it has been a target for a lot of vandalism. If you click on the lock icon you will see that new account holders can edit semi-protected articles after 4 days and ten edits. Richerman (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah thank you for the explanation. I figured that was the cause, since I only recently created an actual account here. I'll add in the above info in a section. BernieW650 (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Image

current

proposed

In a lot of ways, the image used on the French wikipedia article on whales is a lot more representative. It shows the whole animal from a more recognisable angle, and should be approperiatelty licensed. I propose that this replaces the current article image.

Eubalaena_glacialis_with_calf.jpg 49.197.242.37 (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This proposal has a point. Besides, there is already a jumping humpback whale in the article. The proposed image shows better the body shape, both for an adult and an infant. Materialscientist (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Image

current

proposed

In a lot of ways, the image used on the French wikipedia article on whales is a lot more representative. It shows the whole animal from a more recognisable angle, and should be approperiatelty licensed. I propose that this replaces the current article image.

Eubalaena_glacialis_with_calf.jpg 49.197.242.37 (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This proposal has a point. Besides, there is already a jumping humpback whale in the article. The proposed image shows better the body shape, both for an adult and an infant. Materialscientist (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Two jumping whale pictures seem like one too many.--Paracel63 (talk) 09:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 December 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} In mythology Whale weather-vane atop the Nantucket Historical Association Whaling Museum displaying a Sperm Whale.Whales were little understood for most of human history as they spend up to 90% of the lives underwater, only surfacing briefly to breathe.[34] They also include the largest animals on the planet, and many cultures, even those that have hunted them, hold them in awe and feature them in their mythologies.

Change "90% of the lives" to "90% of their lives", incomplete word. Change "planet, and many cultures, " to "planet. Many cultures", run on sentence. Thank you.

Hcrumplermd (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Changed, thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Resource with review by Tim Flannery

• The Sounding of the Whale: Science and Cetaceans in the Twentieth Century by D. Graham Burnett, University of Chicago Press

On the Minds of the Whales February 9, 2012 issue of New York Review of Books

97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.56.123.189 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.195.138.200 (talk)

Whales in the Bible - Irrelevant?

Why is this here, and is it necessary to further the understanding of Whales? Mrrealtime (talk) 13:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Why not? The notability of whales in ancient literature speaks for itself.
—Telpardec  TALK  13:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Because the notability of the bible on the issue of whales does not speak for itself.—snu164  TALK  09:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Please note that you are arguing over whether or not it is appropriate to include the bible under a section heading entitled "Relation to humans / In mythology". Seriously, people? It's not like the article is starting off with, "In the beginning God created whales...." I'm surprised that nobody has weighed in with their objection over the bible being considered "mythology" (although now that I've said it, I'm sure it will come). I find it telling that your objection is not about whether to include this entire section, but on whether to include the bible. By singling out that one work, as if to say that it is less relevant or notable or necessary than the others in that section, it becomes obvious that your personal belief systems are forming the basis of your argument. By definition, such arguments fail to maintain neutral point-of-view, and are therefore completely without merit. Grollτech (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually Grolltech, this conversation began because the bible had its own section. It was moved into the main Mythology section. Quite neutral. CMD (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, CMD, for that clarification. snu164, my apologies, and I agree with your change. A note in this talk section about the change would have been helpful, because as it stands in its present form, I couldn't believe that you were objecting to it!  ;-) Grollτech (talk) 14:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Bible section has been reinstated since. Its content is also much too detailed IMO. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Header removed again. If someone sees a way to convert the bullets to prose, they should. It also needs a good source. CMD (talk) 08:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Dead Link in Article

The link to the reference No. 2 is dead. Please tag it as a dead link. Druggula (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Done Thank you, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Human-like whale vocalization

Beluga whale 'makes human-like sounds'. 24.183.138.70 (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Whaling

I have deleted "For centuries, whales have been hunted for meat and as a source of raw materials. By the middle of the 20th century, industrial whaling had left many species seriously endangered, leading to a worldwide moratorium and the end large scale commercial whaling." from the introduction as this information is covered in more detail later in the article under the "whaling" subsection douts (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, the lede is meant to summarize the article. So I'd put it back... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

The edit occurs in the "Evolution" section, in the first sentence of the first paragraph. In the parentheses, the "(even-toed ungulates)," the current link is for "ungulates," and takes the reader to the ungulates page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ungulate). The link should be for "even-toed ungulates," and should take the reader to the "even-toed ungulates" page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Even-toed_ungulates). — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.gair.jr (talk • contribs) 17:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks DMacks (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)