Talk:Whaling/Archive 2

Section from Whaling in Japan deleted

I edited the following because it was biased in its point of view, calling non-whaling governments hypocritical and written in a style that was very hard to follow (I would assume that the author was not a native speaker of English). It also included several conjugational errors:

The Japanese government point out that IWC regulation require whale meat to be fully utilised once it's been caught. Moreover, it is hypocritical and inconsistent, on one hand, to insist that scientific evidence on whale population is inaccurate and/or insufficient in term of commercial whaling while at the same time insist otherwise in case of scientific whaling, which Japanese government says is needed in order to ascertain the sustainability of any commercial whaling operations, and to provide evidence on repealing the moratorium.

to this:

The Japanese government points out that IWC regulations require that whale meat be utilised upon the completion of research. The Japanese government insists that it be allowed to continue research into whale populations and breeding habits in order to refute claims that commercial whaling threatens the sustainability of the populations. Bobby1011 07:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The accusation of hypocracy is clearly attributed to come from the Japanese government. It is not NPOV to censor view which has clear POV attribution. I would say better disambiguation is to differentiate the legal case (iwc regulation) and moral case (accusation of hypocracy). Moreover, the Japanese side is allowed to hunt whales on scientific ground under iwc regulation whether anti whaling side likes it or not. Therefore, to say "Japanese government insists" is slanting the presentation to make it looks like it is a POV of prowhaling side.

The Japanese government point out that hunting of whale for research purpose is specifically sanctioned under IWC regulation and IWC regulations specifically require that whale meat be fully utilised upon the completion of research. Furthermore it argue that it is hypocritical and inconsistent, on one hand, to insist that scientific evidence on whale population is inaccurate and/or insufficient in the context of commercial whaling while at the same time insist that the scientific whaling is uncecessarily.

Feel free to rebut two different arguments with proper POV attribution 82.21.35.176

Japan's price of whale meat

I think it's important to note that the Japanese younger generation do not like whale meat. Large numbers of Japanese are not buying it, as the price drop reflects. The older generations of Japanese are not buying it. I think it's possible to add the price of whale meat as a encyclopedic fact to reflect this change in Japanese culture, and to whaling as a whole. --Masssiveego 06:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Massiveego, there were a couple of reasons that I removed the price reference. The first is that the price given is the wholesale price. There is no way you can simply convert the number to $US and compare it to the retail price of beef in the US to get a fair comparison of the price. If you wanted to get a fairer comparison of the price, it would be best to compare supermarket prices of whale in Japan to the supermarket prices of beef or chicken. However, retail prices of whale meat are still so expensive that most Japanese supermarkets don't even consider stocking it, so it is fairly hard to draw a true comparison.

The other problem is the comments by some Japanese saying thay dislike whale meat. It is obvious that some Japanese would not like the taste of whale meat, no different to some people disliking the taste of beef or chicken. It is POV to include comments by the people that dislike the taste and exclude comments by people that like the taste. I wouldn't care if comments from both sides (like the taste and dislike the taste) were included, but I think it would start an edit war over a completely subjective sensory perception. The idea that young people in Japan do not like whale meat is crap. Its not hard for a reporter to walk down the street and find a young Japanese who hates whale meat, but it equally not hard for a reporter to walk down the street and find a young Japanese who loves whale meat. That kind of anecdotal evidence is POV. It needs some kind of more scientific polling.Mattopia 09:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I find this kind of local info too detailed for the general whaling page. We have a Whaling in Japan article. Why not put it there? And as Mattopia says, it has to be based on proper statistics, not just what answers a western journalist in Tokyo got on the street. Actually, I think the Japan section is big enough as it is. Because of the controversy around Japanese whaling, we have to be careful so this section doesn't grow out of control. It should suffice with one paragraph on each of the following topics: history, present scientific whaling, critisism and quotas. Details, including the Australian Antarctic Territory paragraph, should go to the Whaling in Japan article. Matt77 15:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Whale meat taste like any other meat to be honest. The reason the price of whale meat was kept so high was much to do with hightened demand generated by the fuss. In Japan, the issue of whaling is sort of regarded as dying out. Even in the West, it is getting harder and harder to argue for the prohibition of hunting for mink whale, for example. If the moratorium continue, then that would give justification for scientific whaling. So one way or another, it pretty much have zero impact on whaling activities. The support for whaling still remain high. Just that public is not that interested in the issue anymore, which is reflected in the price of whale. Whale still remain cheap meat from the cost of production POV though. To be honest, the change in attitude is reflected in the wikipedia article as well. FWBOarticle 23:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Although whaling isn't the most appetizing profession, it still deserves a neutral article. I see some blatant anti-whaling stuff in the tagged section of this article. Just ignore this if I'm being a moron. -63.229.27.236 01:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

History

Sorry in advance if what I'm doing is improper - I'm kind of new around here. Just wondering why the article is so sparse about the actual history of whaling and the whaling industry. It seems like it should be a bigger part of the article than it is. Thanks. --Jonathan P. Whelan 17:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Because more people are interested in politics of whaling than whaling itself. In wikipedia, there is no distinction of readers and editors. Vapour

does anyone have any figures of whaling?

minke whale's diet

A minke whale's daily diet consists of 10 kilograms of fish per kilogram of body mass

It doesn't seem to be correct. Even the very small animals don't eat 10 times their mass per day, and the bigger the animal the smaller the ratio. Taw 12:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Taw, you are right. The 10 kg per kg body mass must refer to the annual intake, not the daily. --Arnejohs 13:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

News

Please read and integrate this articol from independent: http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article358190.ece It deals with the oncoming Japan control of IWC.

And did you know that wikipedia isn't supposed to be a soapbox? :D Vapour

"Legitimate" Norwegian Whaling

Can anyone explain what the justification for saying the Norway "legimately" continues commercial whaling in defiance of the IWC moratorium? They've been members since 1960, and are thus obligated to comply. The current phrasing seems like a definite POV issue to me.--12.15.238.50 19:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"In 1982, the IWC adopted a moratorium on all commercial whaling, to take effect from 1986. Norway formally reserved its position on the IWC moratorium, but nevertheless introduced a temporary ban on minke whale harvesting from 1987, pending more reliable information on the state of the stocks.

The moratorium included a clause stating that “by 1990 at the latest the Commission will undertake a comprehensive assessment of the effects of this decision on whale stocks and consider modification of this provision [the moratorium] and the establishment of other catch limits.” This meant that new, more reliable stock assessments for the stocks from which catches might be taken, and a revised procedure for their management, were to be available by this deadline. The Scientific Committee met both these requirements, but at its Annual Meetings since 1990 the Commission has nevertheless been unwilling to re-evaluate the moratorium and catch quotas. Instead, it has specified new conditions that must be fulfilled before catch quotas can be discussed.

This could only be interpreted as delaying tactics, and was the basis for the Norwegian government’s unilateral decision to resume whaling in 1993. Norway sets an annual quota for the minke whale hunt on the basis of the Revised Management Procedure (RMP) adopted by the Scientific Committee. The quota for 2004 is 670 animals.

Norway’s legal right to hunt minke whales is not in question, since Norway formally reserved its position on the IWC moratorium when it was adopted. This reservation was made pursuant to Article V of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, the agreement on which the establishment and activities of the IWC are based.

The express objective of this convention is to ensure “increases in the numbers of whales which may be captured without endangering these natural resources”. Moreover, the Convention lays down that the harvesting level shall “be based on scientific findings”, shall provide for “the conservation, development and optimum utilisation of the whale resources [...] and shall take into consideration the interests of the consumers of whale products”. In other words, the objective of the Convention is not to protect whales for their own sake, but to regulate catches of whales for the benefit of mankind both now and in the future. The position of member countries of the IWC which oppose whaling on principle is in fact in conflict with the Commission's own objectives."

Source: Norwegian governmental site

--Arnejohs 19:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I took a look at the text of Article V subsection 3 (http://www.iwcoffice.org/commission/convention.htm). The language appears to require that at least two contracting governments object in order to trigger an exemption. Do you happen to know the second government (or more) that objected? Also: 1) Can we incorporate a reference to the relevant governing language to short-circuit this discover process for future readers?, and 2) Isn't "legally" a more neutral wording than "legitimately"?

--12.15.238.50 22:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If you read the subsection carefully you will see that any country with a valid objection is exempted from the amendment, even if alone. I guess what confuses you is 3(b), which gives guidelines for how the deadlines are extended for other countries, following an objection. Norway, Soviet Union (followed by Russia), Japan and Peru objected to paragraph 10(e) (the moratorium) of the schedule. Japan and Peru later withdrew their objections. Iceland withdrew from IWC and later rejoined with a reservation to the moratorium (after a close vote), and is therefore in an unclear situation. But for Norway (and Russia) the situation is clear, the IWC schedule site says:

"The objections of Norway and the Russian Federation not having been withdrawn, the paragraph is not binding upon these Governments."

I have no problem with replacing "legitimately" with "legally" (my inferior English skills fail to catch this nuance anyway)

--Matt77 05:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Organically grown?

Whale meat is "Organically Grown?" That's wrong on so many levels... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.144.105.220 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 6 June 2006

Yeah, it is. It makes whales sound like a plant crop, rather than wild animals. --Apyule 12:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Want to call them farmed instead? ;)Or "game" ? If you can come up with a better "description" then go ahead.."Organically Grown" fits better than anything I can think of offhand ... in many european countries, Minke whale meat would be classified as "Bio-meat" - strange but true ... SammytheSeal 12:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

US whaling history

The comments that the US has "killed more whales in its history than all other nations in the world" needs checking and citing. I have added the relevant templates. I would have considered moving the relevant text here for discussion, but I suspect that might get into people just reverting the comments back into the article without discussion.

I have removed the unsubstantiated assertion. Feel free to provide a source and replace it. Isopropyl 13:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Whaling vs. Pro-Conversation

To whoever is trying to anonymously change the term "anti-whaling" to "pro-conservation", can you stop it? Some of the main advocates on the "anti-whaling" side are national governments. They are not conservation groups. While many conservation groups are part of the anti-whaling side of the argument, they are only part of the anti-whaling side. It seems fairly NPOV to me to have "pro-whaling" and "anti-whaling" as the opposing sides in an argument against whaling. Perhaprs if you want to call the anti-whaling side "pro-conservation", then the pro-whaling side could be called the "pro-sustainable management" side. Neither term mentions the word whaling, though, which is a bit of a wank when that is the central topic. Mattopia 08:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Pro-whaling side also claim to be pro conservation, too. Vapour

Whale Meat and Environmental Toxins

I´m going to research actual figures and facts before I edit this section - although there is no doubt about toxins in whales, in many cases, they are concentrated in the blubber, with much lower ( and in some countries acceptable ) concentrations in the meat itself. I´ll link to the relevant papers once ( and if ) I edit SammytheSeal 12:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, "whale meat" is the generic term most often used to describe whale food products. See [1].

By making a distinction between "meat" and "blubber" you are obfuscating the general danger of consuming whale food products.

Further research on the subject indicates that most scientific references refer to whale blubber in the case of environmental toxins in minke whales - there is no question that in TOOTHED whale meat - such toxin levels are reported to be high - but as the focus is on minke whales in whaling for the most part, I have changed the paragraph to reflect this .. here is one Scientific cite [2]

I will add more as and when I can dig them out of the net - feel free to reference scientific cites opposing this view SammytheSeal 08:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, both the meat and the blubber are consumed. Many subsistence cultures consume blubber, whether fresh or dried; in Japan, on the other hand, the muscle meat is preferred. Cf. [3]. --Graham^talk/mail/e 08:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It is completely incorrect to say that muscle meat is preferred in Japan. In fact, blubber, fatty whale "bacon", and whale organ meat are popular. Please see the peer-reviewed scientific study on whale food products in Japan [4].

I just self-reverted; I was misreading your comment to refer to all consumed whale products, when in fact (I think) you were referring only to the fact that studies of toxicity have centered on blubber. Sorry 'bout that. --Graham^talk/mail/e 08:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Graham - yes, most of the studies ( actually all that I have found to date ) center on blubber contamination - toxic levels in minke whale meat Seem to be under acceptable limits - toothed whale meat is another story howver - I will try and edit to reflect this in the corresponding article(s) ..SammytheSeal 08:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Since this is a brief statement on the presence of toxins in whale, you should avoid obfuscating the issue which is that whale meat *can* contain dangerous toxins, not necessarily that it *does* in all species. If you would like to suggest that whale meat is safe for certain species and not safe for others, then the onus is upon you to write a more detailed summary with appropriate citations to back up your claims. Most reports I've seen find toxins in both meat and blubber. By toxins I mean not only PCB's but also mercury. You have re-phrased the section in such a way to imply that whale meat is safe, which is simply irresponsible given some of the reported findings.

I am curently n the process of Beefing up ( excuse the pun ) the paragraph on the subject - as it stands / stood, the paragraph implied that all whale meat was unsafe and a danger to eat ..I´ll leave it be until I can cite the scientific/government relevant sources and rewrite the paragraph reflecting which species in which whaling nations and what parts of the species are safe to eat or not - fair enough? SammytheSeal 19:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

To be responsible, any statement in the Wikipedia has to highlight the danger of whale food products. Some whale meat may be safer than others, however the majority of samples studied have dangerous toxicity [5]. It would have to be a rather long article to given a definitive guide to what is relatively safe and what is dangerous. Are you really in a position to write that article? Furthermore, it has been found that the whale meat sold in Japanese markets is often mislabelled. So someone who thinks they are consuming Antarctice Minke muscle meat, might actually be getting some dolphin, with a nice cocktail of PCBs and mercury. Then there's the school lunches ... Would you really want your kids to be forced to eat whale meat?

" To be responsible, any statement in the Wikipedia has to highlight the danger of whale food products " If you claim this, then you should trawl wikipedia and edit all animal foodstuff to include toxicity levels. What is so different about whale from other animal meat? Nobody is claiming that there are no toxins in whale meat - the level of toxins are however, relevant for the different species hunted / utilised. Some products are ´safe ´ to eat, others are not, depending on which species and where - one cannot simply declare that all whale products are toxic and ´unsafe ´worldwide ( unless of course there is an anti whaling agenda behind the claim or they actually are ) If you feel so strongly about the subject then by all means rewrite the article to reflect the differences ( if any ) in the major whaling countries - this is what I am trying to do - as I have already stated, I will not touch the relevant paragraph until I am ready to rewrite it to reflect this myself - however, I do not intend to let misleading edits stand until then.

Currently, the article states this : Whaling is dangerous not only to the whales themselves but can also be dangerous to the people who eat the red meat, blubber, or organs of many species. Studies of several species have shown that whale meat products often contains dangerously high levels of environmental toxins such as PCBs, mercury, and dioxins [10]. [11] and [12]

Studies on the red meat and blubber of Long finned pilot whales in the Faroe islands show high toxic levels and studies have shown that this has had a detrimental effect on those who eat the red meat and blubber.[citation needed] However, studies of minke whales hunted in both the North Atlantic and the southern ocean have shown that the red meat of some minke whale individuals have levels of toxicity below recommended limits, with the Antarctic minke having the lowest levels of contamination.[citation needed]

In general, studies have shown that levels of some environmental toxins in toothed whale products are higher than corresponding levels in baleen whales, reflecting the fact that toothed whales feed at a higher trophic level than baleen whales in the food chain. However, other contaminants such as the organichloride pesticides [[HCH} and [HCB]] have comparable levels in both toothed and baleen species, including minke whales. In Norway, another whaling nation, only the red meat of minke whales is eaten and studies indicate that average toxicity levels conform to national limits for toxicity.'' That looks fine to me for the moment as it is reasonably NPOV, albeit lacking in detail - any additions/edits should also be NPOV - the question here is not whether whales should be hunted - it is whether the various whale products are ´safe ´to eat in the various counties where whaling is practiced. SammytheSeal 13:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is another - from Greenpeace International of all people ;O) .. [6].

I quote the Conclusion of the rather long paper :

" Conclusions Whale blubber is contaminated with various halogen-organic contaminants.The most conservative guidance value for tolerable intake of PCB is exceeded by consumption of only 0,05 g of the highest contaminated blubber. Even the least conservative value is exceeded by consumption of only 16 g of the blubber of the highest contamination level. Food limit values for PCB are exceeded up to 90-times.The most conservative guidance value for tolerable intake of DDT is exceeded by consumption of only 2,3 g of the highest contaminated blubber. Even the least conservative value is exceeded by consumption of 45 g of the blubber of the highest contamination level. Food limit values for DDT are exceeded 3-times (WHO, FDAvalue) to 333-times (EU-value for fat). The contaminations in whale meat (only data for CPs and PBDE) do not exceed guidance values for tolerable intake. These values are also not exceeded by CPs or PBDE in blubber. "

Nuff said ..SammytheSeal 08:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

However it was found by the joint British-US-Japan study of whale meat products that levels of HCH and HCB were comparable for north atlantic minke whales and toothed whales. Therefore the statement that contamination is lower for minke whales, while true for some contaminants, is misleading and should be removed. -CAT

"Whaling is dangerous not only to the whales themselves but can also be dangerous to the people who eat the red meat, blubber, or organs of many species."

"Whaling is dangerous to the whale". True but the expression is biased in favour of anti-whaling point because one is implying that eating whaling meat is "fatal". Moreover, I don't think Greenpeace is a reliable reference to scientific fact. Stick to science publication. "For sensitive consumers and those with high-level consumption (e.g., whaling communities), exposure to mercury and to a lesser extent PCBs from certain whale blubber and bacon and striped dolphin liver products could lead to chronic health effects. The Japanese community should therefore exercise a precautionary approach to the consumption of such foods in excess, particularly by high-risk members of the population." [7] Vapour

Historical statistics

I know this is a matter of controversy, but it is also a matter of research, but it would be nice to have some data on the numbers of whales harvested per year over time. I have seen some numbers cited in policy books, and they might be highly speculative or controversial, but it would be useful to include them. This is what I was looking for when I referenced this article. I've seen some numbers in this area used in discussion energy policy, and in particular, the end of (cheap) oil. Tied to this data is the market demand for whales, for which I will add another section.

Mulp 05:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Market forces driving whaling

As I noted above, I have seen selective statistics used in the discussion of such policy matters like oil depletion. In one of the books on oil policy, the history of whaling was discussed related to the market for whale oil as used for lighting. The competition was tallow candles, with one having an advantage due to smoke/smell, details are vague. Other alternatives esisted, but those were listed as the precursors to the initial boom in the oil market, which when combined with the depletion of whale stocks which was driving up the price of whale oil, resulted in a rapid switch over to petroleum.

I believe a similar situation occurred with one of the other major drivers of whaling demand, balen, with plastics being developed, plus a change in fashions. This might have been driven by the war.

I came to this article hoping to find an "energy" related set of statistics or similar useful "quotes" for an essay. If I can find some sources in my library, I'll endeavor to return and add them...

Mulp 05:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Whaling songs

Not enough information about whaling songs. - FrancisTyers · 23:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Look here. Matt77 06:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I assume that FrancisTyers was asking about songs about whaling, not songs made by whales. I'm no expert, but is the topic significantly different from Sea shanty? A subheading could be added there and referenced here. Or, if the topic is sufficiently large, by all means make a new article and reference it from both pages. --Graham^talk/mail/e 08:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, this is what I was lamenting about. Perhaps a redirect should be made from Whaling song and Whaling songs to Sea shanty. I'm not completely up on on this particular genre, so I'm not sure if this would be appropriate or not. Welcome input. - FrancisTyers · 09:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The arguments for and against whaling

It appear that someone has been stealthly deleting counter argument presented by pro-whaling side. It takes two to tango. Anyone who is anti whaling are free to present their POV. Leave the other side of POV alone. Vapour

Whaling by pirate

I have done proper citation and reference of the sources. The original papers do not make accusation of "pirate whaling". It's an obvious spin for anti whaling side. This "pirate whaling" does not have proper source except Earthtrust thingy which incidentally does not have citation of source. I will delete the section heading and transfer the content to conservation argument section. By the way, Baker's second paper which I cited mention illegal whaling by Soviet, which in his view, done siginificant damage to whale stock. I suggest that someone who has time would expand "Russian whaling" section instead. Vapour

IUCN Red List

Someone appear to add his/her own personal reseach to IUCN Red List. There was no extinct whale species listed before. Now someone include population of gray whale without any explanation or citation. Please justify one's inclusion by citing from IUCN list. Vapour

I deleted reference to Gray Whale on "Extinct" section of the RedList. Citation was wrong population group of gray whale. Plus, it is not kosher to add one's own interpretation of RedList.Vapour

I restored the extinction of the Atlantic grey whales. On the IUCN Red List page for the grey whale, it says Habitat and Ecology: Gray Whales are endemic to the North Pacific Ocean, having become extinct in the North Atlantic more than 150 years ago. That's good enough for me. There's also a whole chapter about the extinction of the Atlantic grey whales in Farley Mowat's Sea of Slaughter. I think it is important to make the point that there were grey whales in the Atlantic into historical times. As to whether that was at the hands of whalers, as Mowat maintains, or not, I can't answer, though I imagine that it is entirely true, given the almost-certain extinction of the North Atlantic right whales ongoing at the moment. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 09:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"Original research...includes unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation.""

We are supposed to present IUCN's Red List as it is. The fact is that North Atlantic population of Gray whale is not in the RedList. It is IUCN which decide which particular population group of species are genetic or conservation wise important enough to be listed separately. And it is not for us to argue that IUCN would have listed Atlantic gray whale separatedly had it not gone extinct or that Atlantic gray whale is genetically distinct. Listing North Atlantic stock in the table of IUCN's Red List would amount to adding interpretation as well as advocacy. That is why it is more NPOV to mention the extinction of North Atlantic stock just below the table but not in the table. If I wanted to spin for pro whaling, I would have argued that gray whales "as a species" is not endengered because Northeast Pacific population of gray whale is not. Vapour

Hi Vapour -- I don't think I'm "interpreting" anything. I'm sure that you know that the IUCN Red List is primarily based around extant organisms or animals that died out in recent historical times. It doesn't discuss moas or elephantbirds either, but there's little question that humans exterminated them. But, if you still want a scientific reference about the Atlantic greys, then how about Dating Remains of Gray Whales from the Eastern North Atlantic by P. J. Bryant, Journal of Mammalogy, Vol. 76, No. 3 (Aug., 1995), pp. 857-861. The abstract ends with the following:

These data together with a similar range of dates for specimens from the western North Atlantic as well as limited historical records, support the view that the gray whale existed in the Atlantic Ocean until the 17th century. The populations on both sides of the North Atlantic apparently declined during a period of active coastal whaling, supporting the suggestion that it was extirpated by early whalers.

I'm not a mammal expert, but I am a palaeontologist, and I think it is pretty widely accepted that humans were either a factor or the main factor in the extinction of these coastal whales. So while I agree with you that the IUCN isn't explicit about the Atlantic greys in why they died out, I don't really think including them in the table is anything other than scientifically sound or reasonable. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 21:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You are not making a Wikipedia argument. The "truthiness" about the extinction of Atlantic population of greys whales or the cause of such extinction are irrelevant in wikipedia. I'm merely pointing out the fact that Atlantic population of Gray Whale is not in the extinction category of IUCN RedList. Just running "search" in IUCN website would affirm this fact. If RedList doesn't make something explicit, then making that explict in wikipedia is an act of interpretation (original research) on your part that such fact/idea is implicit in the RedList. Mentioning Atlantic population of Gray Whale on the footnote more accurately reflect the way IUCN present the information. You are free to cite other sources about extinction of atlantic population of Gray whales or the cause of it. But mixing your sources with IUCN's RedList would amount to an original reseach because it is a synthesis of verifiable sources. Vapour

I'm sorry, I must be missing something. On the IUCN page, it mentions, explicity, that Gray Whales are endemic to the North Pacific Ocean, having become extinct in the North Atlantic more than 150 years ago. In other words, the pages says that this species is present in the Pacific, extinct in the Atlantic (as opposed to never having lived in the Atlantic). What more is required? I think you're using the letter of the law to defeat the spirit. Wikipedia is meant to have verifiable data from reliable sources, as opposed to being a bunch of personal speculations and commentaries. But, in this case, it's clear the IUCN page (and the book itself) comment on the Atlantic whales, and these are considered by scientists in the field to have become extinct in relatively modern times. So what's the problem? I'm not adding anything not on the IUCN, and I'm certainly not expounding a theory of my own, merely including extra information from the IUCN page that had been overlooked before. What's the big deal? Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 00:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

What more is required? An entry in the IUCN list for the North Atlantic Gray Whale population/stock. We present the table as A complete list of whale conservation statuses as listed by The World Conservation Union (IUCN). North Atlantic Gray Whale is not in the IUCN Extinct category, so neither should it be in our table. Noone is saying that your info should not be mentioned (actually, it would be wrong not to mention it), but let's do it in the right place. If we choose to present the table as the IUCN Red List, then let's stick to their classification system, and add footnotes as appropriate. Matt77 02:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Above the table here it actually says: Note that, in the case of the blue and gray whales, the IUCN distinguishes the statuses of various populations. These populations, while not regarded as separate species, are considered sufficiently important in term of conservation. So my point is that the Atlantic greys were definitely a population, and though they aren't listed as a unique, extinct category in the IUCN lists, they are still mentioned in the Pacific grey section, and the only reason they don't have their own entry is the same as with moas and mammoths: because they went extinct in a time period before than covered by the Red Data lists. Excluding the Atlantic greys is from the table is removing useful information from a place where it makes a logical, clear point simply to force the table to fit a narrow definition of Wikipedia rules. Keeping the Atlantic greys in the table isn't a nonsense entry or a partisan point, it isn't ading something that isn't in the IUCN table, and it isn't bad science. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 09:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you considered about the existence of alternative interpretations such as that Atlantic population was not "sufficiently important in term of conservation". Or that IUCN scientists feel that they have already bend scientific objectivity too far for anti whaling nations by making "population" exemption. If I take partisan pro whaling position, I would delete mention of blue and gray whales "population" from the table because these are "definitely a population" not species, and therefore, it is misleading and not usefull to the debate.

This is why wikipedia is not about the truth but attribution of opinions and facts of "other people". IUCN, for whatever reason, does not list Atlantic population of Gray Whales in the extinction category. Expressing one's opinion as if it is from IUCN RedList is not right in wikipedia even if such opinion is true. Vapour

And this is also why academics and scientists find Wikipedia frustrating -- it isn't about facts but consensus and rules. I'm not an expert on whales, so I won't labour the point, and will happily concur to what you think is best. But hard as I try, I have to admit that I find my enthusiasm for Wikipedia declining... Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 17:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It's other way round. Academics find wikipedia flustrating because wikipedia's peer review process cannot be vetted, and as a result, attribution and differentiation of sources (i.e. literature review) are not rigorous enough. Atlantic population is not in the extinction category of Redlist. Wikipedia or any encycropedia or academic paper should state it as such. Doing otherwise would be unacademic. The fact that we manage to resolve our dispute show how sensible wikipedia NPOV policies are. Moreover, you are free to mention the extinction of Atlantic population of Gray Whales. I might find reference that Gray Whales as a species is not endengered. I've read it somewhere that endengered status of sei and fin whale are disputed, so I'm quite sure that someone will eventually add this info as well. Adding verifiable information is always good in wikipedia. As Faux News say, "We Report. You Decide." :D Vapour

NPOV

I'm inclined to delete the line "With ongoing marine pollution from large industrial nations, it is possible that one day, the Faroese people will be forced to go without this local, free range, organic and culturally meaningful food resource, creating an environmental as well as social disaster." It sounded biased on first glance, and upon searching could not find anywhere evidence to show that banning the hunt would cause social disaster, much less envirnmental. Sameerkale 19:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Flag

This article is so hideously point-of-view based to pro-whaling, I was surprised there weren't literal adverts for whale meat on the page. I'm amazed that the pro-whaling nutjobs have surpassed the anti-whaling nutjobs with their policing skills of this article; however let's try and keep things neutral. IMHO this article needs to be scrapped and re-written, it's hideously POV oriented. One fundamental line that isn't anywhere on the page is that 'the average citizen' of any first world country openly condemns whaling, flat out, non-debatable, non-negotiable and you're an ass if you think otherwise (okay, maybe not an ass, but definitely detached from reality). Furthermore, whilst that is being said, there's also the cultural aspects of whaling, which are already addressed thoroughly, yet need to be retained. Yet realistically, culture aside, if it weren't for that I'm pretty sure the anarchronistic employ would be sent to davey jones' locker once and for all. This article doesn't reflect the reality of the situation and seems to be maintained and edited by pro-whaling zealots. Not on guys, this is an encyclopedia, put yourself aside, put your views aside, write neutral and write for the ages! 211.30.71.59 15:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

To the australian user 211.30.71.59.

Your POV is showing ;O)

RE: One fundamental line that isn't anywhere on the page is that 'the average citizen' of any first world country openly condemns whaling, flat out, non-debatable, non-negotiable and you're an ass if you think otherwise

Very neutral POV don´t you think?

RE : Not on guys, this is an encyclopedia, put yourself aside, put your views aside, write neutral and write for the ages!

That´s what most of the serious editors are trying to do - present a NPOV - if you can come up with cites to back your claims then by all means, rewrite it - try putting your obvious anti-whaling bias to one side first please though ;)SammytheSeal 19:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

To the anonymous user 211.30.71.59. Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute says: "Please note: The above label is meant to indicate that a discussion is ongoing, and hence that the article contents are disputed and volatile. If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasings that are problematic." Could you please be a bit more specific in your critisism on this article. Is the whole article POV or only certain section(s). What is missing? An explicit condemnation of whaling? Sorry, I hope you agree that such a thing doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Or more info on the world opinion (or opinion in different countries/regions)? By all means, if you can find such info, please put it in. Or are there material here that breaks Wikipedia policies and guidelines? Please point it out. I can only repeat SammytheSeal's invitation to work with us to improve this article Matt77 03:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, given that 211.30.71.59's only specific comment on what is wrong with the article is that: One fundamental line that isn't anywhere on the page is that 'the average citizen' of any first world country openly condemns whaling, flat out, non-debatable, non-negotiable and you're an ass if you think otherwise, and given that Japan and Norway are both first world countries, I'm going to remove the POV flag from the page. If someone (anyone) thinks the page is POV, they can put the flag back on the condition that they say what they think is wrong with the article. Without specific information on what people consider to be POV, there is no way to fix it. Mattopia 09:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

A gallup poll conducted in the 1990's (I apologize for not having the details in front of me, but it was entitled "US Public Attitudes towards whaling", one of the authors/researchers was Dr. Milton Freeman) determined that the majority of AMERICANS had no problem with contemporary whaling, provided it was done sustainably. The study is available on-line I believe, perhaps through a link on the High North Alliance web site. Hardly a first world majority against whaling: the complete opposite, in fact.

I found it. Just google "Gallup" and "whaling". I will create new section. Vapour

Conversation status: Addition

I added a paragraph which has been raised by numerous sources here in Iceland. With legimate corrections it says:

Some North Atlantic states has argued that fin whales should not be listed as endangered anymore and criticize the list for being inaccurate.[citation needed] IUCN has recorded studies showing that more than 40,000 individuals are present in the North Atlantic Ocean around Greenland, Iceland, and Norway.[12] As there is no information about fin whales in areas outside of the Northern Atlantic they still hold the status of being endangered.

My problem is that i haven't been able to find reliable first hand source for the first sentence, mainly because the published work that i based this paragraph on is just like this sentence, not accurate on who have stated it. I ask if this could stand like it is until adequate refernces are to be found.--Siggiari 13:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Japanese government hunt fin whale arguing that it is not endengered. I read their statement in Japanese. Unfortunately, Japanese newsmedia do not permanently achive their news on their website. Vapour

It could have been sei or both sei and fin. Sorry. :(Vapour

Factual error

"The primary species hunted is the minke whale, the smallest of the baleen whales." (section 2: Modern whaling)

This is incorrect, Pygmy Right Whale is smaller. The Minke is the smallest of the rorquals, but even so it should be noted that the term Minke Whale applies to two different species. --Anshelm '77 17:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Lead section

I took a crack at creating a neutral lead section. The present lead section is based on the structure of the article per Wikipedia:Lead_section. Given the heated debate over this topic, each change to the lead section needs to be justified on this talk page using one or more of the guidlines set out in Wikipedia:Lead_section. If you do not justify your change to the lead section (i) on this talk page (ii) using one or more of the guidlines set out in Wikipedia:Lead_section, your change will be reverted.-- Jreferee 16:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)