Talk:Whaling/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Several issues relating to this article as of around 2004 (obsolete)

To Tannin regarding :

" Japan also carries out commercial whaling operations, which are thinly disguised as "science". The "research" is conducted under the auspices of the Institute of Cetacean Research, a privately owned organisation planned years in advance and officially founded in 1987 by a whaling company, equipped by that company with a factory ship and other associated equipment, crewed by former company employees, and selling roughly US$60 million dollars worth of whale products each year. Although whaling "ended" in May 1987, the same whaling fleet, with the same crews, was back in the Southern Ocean harvesting whales by December of that year, and carrying the processed whale products back to Japan for sale."

Whether you agree with it or not, Japan is conducting scientific research under the auspices of the IWC and is therefor not carrying out commercial whaling operations. It is a requirement of IWC membership to sell any meat taken from research catches ...

" thinly disguised as "science " is stating a point of view or do you disagree ?

"Many species of whale are close to extinction" - Other than Right whales, which species are "close to extinction" ? please be more specific.

"Whales are amongst the most intelligent of the non-human animals. " POV ... can you supply evidence to back this up?

Tannin, please explain why you reverted. --Nanshu 02:58, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I should bother, Nanshu, as this topic has been thrashed out long before - back when you were trying to pervert this page with your own highly biased contrbutions. (See the page history) But since you ask, it is because the evidence is overwhelming. Even the Japanese themselves do not trouble to maintain the fiction in any form stronger than that necessary to allow the farce to continue.

One can say anti whaling countries activities in IWC is thinly disguised attempt to end whaling under any circumstance which is also agains the spirit of IWC. Both side is BSing. We ought to properly attribute whose claims/views/accusation belong to which side. Japanese side claim that it is science and the other side claim that it is commerce. Let leave it at that. Otherwise, we have to start putting our POV on both side which neither side are going to acknowledge at least publically. FWBOarticle 13:18, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

On another matter, I see that you are objecting to the sentence "Whales are amongst the most intelligent of the non-human animals" again. (It's not something I added to the entry, by the way, but no matter. It's true enough.) I have difficulty in understanding why anyone should object to this sentence.

In fact, I can only think of two possible reasons to oppose this simple statment of well-known fact. (a) A contributor's ignorance of comparative mental ablities between animals - a field that is quite well-studied and reasonably well known. Or (b) a keen desire to pretend that whales are as relatively stupid as squid or tuna, so as to be able to claim that the hunting of whales is no more barbaric than the harvesting of lobsters.

Given the fact that this innocuous little sentence has been butchered about before (again, refer to the page history), and working on the assumption that most Wikipedia contributors are reasonably intelligent and moderately well-informed about a wide range of things, I am forced to conclude that the real agenda here is (b). Tannin 04:39, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No one is claiming that whales intelligence is equal to fish. However, whether they are uniquely more intellgient than cow, sheep, pig is another matter. Japanese side are claiming that hunting of whale is no more barbaric than harvesting of pigs. AS far as I know, relative intelligence of say pig with whale is not at all conclusive. Working on the assumption that most Wikipedia contributors are reasonably intelligent and moderately well-informed about a wide range of things, I am forced to conclude that the real agenda here for someone to botch the objects of comparison is a keen diesire to pretend that whale are as relatively intelligent as human so as to be able to claim that the hunting of whale is as barbaric as the hunting of human. FWBOarticle (added around July 2004)

---

The commercial or scientific nature of whaling

Tannin,

Which evidence are you refering to?

You are maintaining that Japan conducts "commercial " whaling activities. Under the International Convention for the Regulation for Whaling. As a signatory to the ICRW, they are required to process any catch and sell it in order to finance it. Those are the rules, plain and simple. Norway conducts a commercial hunt - Japan does not

I don't believe Tannin has actually disputed that those are the rules. Tannin's point is of course that the rules are being "gamed", and that scientific research is not the real aim. There are several pieces of evidence that this indeed the case:

Japan is lobbying hard for the morartorium to be overturned. If they merely wanted to hunt for scientific purposes, why would this be necessary? Japan's fishery minister, Masayuki Komatsu, told the IWC that part of the reason that Japan has been giving economic aid to several Caribbean countries in order to persuade them to vote to overturn the moratorium.

Reply (Sumeria )

The Gaming at the IWC is not the point here ( If it was, we could discuss why countries such as Switzerland and San Marino are IWC members )The point is whether or not Japan´s whaling activities can be classified as commercial or not.

Japan gave the go ahead for its whalers to sell whales accidentally caught in nets. These whales are not the object of scientific research. I believe it is the case that the number of whales caught accidentally has increased appreciably since this rule was brought in, though I can't my hand on where I read this right now.

The head of the Japanese fisheries ministry called Minke Whale the "cockroaches of the sea" and said that a reduction in their numbers is necessary to avoid them eating too many fish.

Reply (Sumeria )

Fisheries minister Morley of the UK denied a Norwegian Sightings survey access to UK waters a few years ago ( 4 I think ) as a political fop to voters on the eve of the IWC meeting in London. Point is Pete, all sides make political moves for their own political agendas in their home countries.

Did you know that "Iruka", Dolphine in Japanese kanji literaly mean "Sea Pig". :D

Conversely, I am not aware of any statements from the Japanese fishery that states "we only want to do scientific research." In short Tannin is right, it is research in name only and you are only kidding yourself if you want to maintain the fiction. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:35, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Reply (Sumeria )

I would suggest that a NPOV would be to add a section on loopholes in the ICRW where these POVs that you and Tannin mention can be entered. Stating that Japanese or Icelandic whaling is commercial whaling is a biased POV. The only country whaling that fufills the " commercial whaling " criteria is Norway. Sumeria

This is utter nonsense, and everyone knows it. When you are a commercial organisation and you catch something with paid workers in the ordinary commercial way and sell it through ordinary commercial food vendoers to the general public in ordaniary shops, this is commercial, by definition. It doesn't matter if you pretend you are Mother Teresa giving green cheese to comfort women, it is the known series of public actions that make it commercial, not the press releases of a government that doesn't even take its own lies seriously. Tannin

(Reply to Tannin)

The Institute of Cetacean Research is a nonprofit research organization. ( from their own charter )and has special legal status in Japan. How can they ( ICR )be commercial if they cannot make a profit?.

Commercial-viewed with regard to profit

Norwegian commercial whaling is conducted by 34 ( at last count ) licenced fishing boats who sell their catch to distributors, who in turn sell the meat via commercial outlets. The only say the government has in the matter is to set the catch quota and conditions of license and supply the veterinary inspectors for each boat ( which the whaling vessel owners have to pay for themselves) That is a commercial hunt by definition.

As it stands, some parts of the article have an obvious anti-whaling bias, mainly this part below ..

"Japan also carries out commercial whaling operations, which are thinly disguised as "science". The "research" is conducted under the auspices of the Institute of Cetacean Research, a privately owned organisation planned years in advance and officially founded in 1987 by a whaling company, equipped by that company with a factory ship and other associated equipment, crewed by former company employees, and selling roughly US$60 million dollars worth of whale products each year. Although whaling "ended" in May 1987, the same whaling fleet, with the same crews, was back in the Southern Ocean harvesting whales by December of that year, and carrying the processed whale products back to Japan for sale. "

Surely the object here is to present a NPOV and let the reader make up their own minds based upon the available data. " This is utter nonsense, and everyone knows it" is a biased POV. " Japan also carries out commercial whaling operations, which are thinly disguised as "science" is a biased POV. I would quite happily go along with wording such as " The ICR conducts whaling activities blah blah - however, critics of Japanese whaling maintain that Japan carries out commercial whaling operations, which are thinly disguised as "science" or words to that affect ad infinitum. The issue here is whether or not wikipedia wants to present a NPOV or a biased one..Sumeria 17:00 8 Mar 2004 (CET)

I had the pleasure of meeting with the various parties in Iceland last summer (check out an empty month last July in my contributions history). No-one, on any side, was suggesting the hunt was about research. By all means we should talk about the formal classifications of hunts that have come about because of 1980s political decisions, but by only doing that, and merely mentioning that Icelandic whale meat is sold as a loophole, would be to look at the issue upside-down. The primary purpose of the whaling is commercial, and to try to effect changes in fish stocks. This isn't Greenpeace talking, it is the Icelandic Government.

P.S. I'm not especially anti-whaling from a personal point of view - I've eaten whale myself, in Greenland. Tastes like beef. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:58, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Neither am I, just trying to sort out obvious bias in the article ;)Sumeria14:08, 8 Mar 2004 (CET)

Any anti whailing side appear to be unwilling to accept whaling even whale population recover, which is against the spirit of IWC. As far as I can see, the article is only interested in accusing japanese commercial wahling. I would think it is more appropriate to discuss biase of both side, Japanese scientific/commercial whaling and anti whaling lobby to end whaling, may be in the context of IWC politics and procedure. In that way, both side of bias can be put in proper context. Hypocracy runs on both side. Japan may be hypocratical by pretending that their whaling are for science but then they are forced to resort to this due to anti whaling side failure to acknowlege that certain whale's population is way far from being endengered, which is hypocritical as well. Issue outside of IWC, such as cruelty of whale hunting or the level of intellignece of whales can be discussed separately IMO. FWBOarticle 14:26, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What has the Scientific Committee said?

"[T]he International Whaling Commission [and] its scientific committee ..... have repeatedly criticised Japanese whaling, and called for it to cease." - Can anyone show any links confirming this? Given that the whole point of the provision was to give whaling country a cover, I'm rather suprise by this.

P.S, yep, found it myself.

More on Japan

Pcb21 said "Japan - it is slightly ludicrous to retry this "scientific research" argument in the week that Japan again asked to call it commercial whaling, but I have rewritten in NPOV anyway"

Firstly, thanks, secondly I agree that scientific research is a cover. However, I do not agree that that is anything bad which the article and anti whaling side tries to spin. As far as IWC's principle is concerned, hunting on non endengered whale shouldn't be a problem. If those antiwhaling side had any honesty, hunting of mink whales on commercial basis would have been o.k. ages ago. Problem of this whaling issue is that both side are using IWC's regulation and procedure as a cover so that both side can claim some sort of moral victory. That is why I have made some change to Japanese whaling section. That section, IMO, is not the right place to condem Japanese scientific whaling for being commercial whaling.

Cetacean intelligence

A respected Cetacean scientist studying cetacean intelligence ( Dr. Margaret Klinowska, of the Animal Welfare and Human-Animal Interactions Group at the University of Cambridge ) states:

" There is no trans-species definition of intelligence, simplistic notions based on absolute brain-mass or brain-to-body-weight ratios are specious. Cetacean brains are structurally more primitive than those of hedgehogs and they score lower than ferrets in learning ability. Attempts to teach dolphins to communicate have succeeded only in producing sequential ordering of responses for reward. Dr. Klinowska concluded that by implying that only intelligent or otherwise "special" animals are worthy of consideration, the myth of cetacean intelligence was counterproductive to animal welfare and conservation." (Quoted from Conference on Problems and Strategies in the Scientific Management of Fisheries and Marine Mammals..April 12, 1994)

Please list or cite these comparative studies between cetaceans and other non-human animals Tannin, one or two will do.

Or readers may conclude (c) You have your own agenda, which is reinforced by your POV above. Correct me (newbie) if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that a neutral pov was the objective on wikipedia Sumeria

I want to scuttle back home to my books before I answer this one :) Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:35, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

LOL ... go ahead, you are on a hiding to nothing with this one ;o)Sumeria13:15, 8 Mar 2004

IWC

I think this section is a must in the issue of whaling. Can someone write about things such as policy of Scientific Comittee or accusation of vote buying? 02:37, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The "extinction" section

This section reads (as of the current revision)

Many whale species that historically were hunted are now threatened with extinction while some has shown sign of recovery. Today there is widespread agreement around the world, that it is morally wrong to exterminate a species of animal for food. This in turn mean that those species which does not fall into such category should remain open to commercial utilisation. It these whale species that pro-whaling nations wish to hunt.

According to IUCN Red List, the world's most comprehensive inventory of the global conservation status of plant and animal species, Coalfish Whale, Blue Whale, Fin Whale and Right Whale are indeed listed as "Endangered". White Whale, Hump Whale, Pot Whale are listed as "Vulnerable". Bowhead Whale, Antarctic Minke Whale, Arnoux's beaked Whale, Baird's Beaked Whale, Southern Right Whale, Pacific Pilot Whale, Northern and Southern Bottlenose Whale, Killer Whale are listed as "Low Risk/Conservation Dependent". Common Minke Whale is listed as "Low Risk/Near Threatened". Pygmy Right Whale, Long-Finned Pilot Whale, Pygmy and Dward Sperm Whale, Melon-Headed Whale are listed as "Low Risk/Least Concern". Currently, no species of whale are listed as "Critically Endengered" in IUCN list

It is clear we are not progressing just in summary messages, so I want to spell out why I don't like parts of this text:

Today there is widespread agreement around the world, that it is morally wrong to exterminate a species of animal for food. This in turn mean that those species which does not fall into such category should remain open to commercial utilisation.

This is really bad. Firstly it is a complete non sequitur. Because it is accepted wrong to do X, it doesn't necessarily mean it is right to do Y!

Next it is making an opinion - "these species... should remain open to commercial utilisation." This is POV right at the heart of the argument, and thus always has to be attributed. (This is why the whole article is littered with attributions, because virtually everything is a battleground).

I will attribut it to pro whaling side. I will also mention that extinction argument is accused of beng red hearing given that whaler aren't bothered with Blue Whale for now. FWBOarticle

Next my short paragraph about the non-recovering species unlikely to be hunted again has been removed twice. I don't understand why - it is true (the pro-whaling argument is always about sustainable use - they never propose unrenewable use). It is important to make readers aware of this and yet someone with a pro-whaling POV is actively removing text that shows them in a good light!

Blue Whale's rate of population recovery is low. One could easily guess it from their size. If they breed like mink whales, nature have serious trouble. It is only slow recovery, not non recovery. There is no reason to presume that it will never recover, which should be good news for all. Presumption that it will never be hunted is not an accurate assesement.FWBOarticle

Next the use of non-standard names (Coalfish Whale, Pot Whale, White Whale, Hump Whale) and use a mix of species names and subspecies/population names. We should stick to accepted species names through out - no use long discontinued names that are listed by the IUCN as "also called" for backwards compatibility.

Then you ought to change the name rather than deleting it. I personally picked the names which is easier one to be recognised. I could have listed just non endengered one, but I considered that to be unfair so I added endengered and valunable. And from pro-whaling point of view, quantity of catch is dependent on level of conservation status. They are currently concentrating on mink whales as a matter of tactics to lift moratorium. So it is a relevant information for the other side of the debate. As I said, say whatever you wnat for your side, don't sabotage other side. If you think "attribution" is inaccurate, then fine, please correct it. But please don't censor. FWBOarticle

But importantly - why are we throwing red herrings about the relative safety of species that were not typical targets for hunting, and certainly back on the hunting agenda anytime soon? It is complete madness in the context of whaling to talk about the safety of the Melon-headed Whale as some sort of counterbalance to Fin, Sei, Blue etc. It is the (direct) equivalent of saying "Oh let's not worry about the tigers dying off in India, there's still plenty of lions in Africa."

Why are we throwing red herring about endengered species that were not targets for hunting? It is complete madness in the conext of whaling to talk about Blue whales as some sort of counterbalance to mink whales, sperm whales and so on. It is the (direct) equivalent of saying "Oh let's worry about lions in Africa which is still plenty because the tigers are dying off in India.". FWBOarticle

This doesn't make sense. Pcb21| Pete 13:29, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Does to me. (^_^). Why are we throwing red herrings about the relative safety of species (Blue Whales) that "are" not typical targets for hunting, and certainly back on the hunting agenda anytime soon?" That is why I have reversed your tiger and lion argument to show that the same logic apply for either side. I have left your Blues Whales alone. I expect you to do likewise. Oh, for whales, some species are not target or on agenda solely because of politics of moratorium. As far as whaling side go, all whales are "potential" meat. Minks is the easiest one at the moment for political reason. You consider the past to be more relevant. I consider the future (including hunting melong whales) to be more relevant. I don't see what is the problem of hunting melong whales if they aren't endengeared. As I said, leave the other side alone. It isn't upto you to decide what information/argument is relevant. You are entitled to make comment abour relevance of any argument or information the other side provided. FWBOarticle

Am I wrong in any of this? Pcb21| Pete 13:34, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That depends on POV. :D FWBOarticle

I addressed the points above after a 24 hour cooling period. Pcb21| Pete 16:19, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If you don't like what anti-whaler side of arguments or the information (such as the Red List), that is just tough. I'm very sorry to hear that some people have different opinion from you and do not agree with what you say. You might think the argument or information provided by pro-whaling side to be red-hearing/irrelevant. But pro-whaling side think the same thing about the antiwhaling arguments(information) too. "Add" extra information or argument instead of trying to censor the other side of argument. If you think the other side of argument is spurious, leave it as long as correct attribution are made. You are free to counter it by "adding" the counter argument or counter information. Plus if any argument is spurious or red-hearing, the reader of Wikepedia would think the same and it will be good for your side. What you are doing is hardly conductive to the spirit of Wikipedia especially when you haven't responded to the above responses I have made. And lastly, if someone didn't merge two separate sections, we wouldn't have had this entire debate in the first place. FWBOarticle

P.S. As of Red List, I listed "all" information regarding conservation status of whale species because selective provision of partial information would open itself to accusation of bias. There are number of whales which are not in the listed due to the insufficient data. That I decided not to include.

Again, wouldn't it be more useful to write only about species that have been hunted/are likely to be hunted again? Including species that are not significantly hunted (and are therefore more stable population-wise) tends to create a misleading impression. This appears to be deliberate on your part to mask the possible ill-effects of starting whaling again, in a particularly reprehensible and disingenuous manner.

That is your POV. If your argument is valid, what would stop me from deleting information regarding Blue whales because of my POV. Blue Whales is irrelevant for the current hunt afterall. I didn't deltet information regarding Blue whales because i respect your right to present your side of argument. The title of the section is conservation status of whale. I provided the comprehensive information from the Red List which show exactly that. So stop trying to have selective presentation of the information from you POV. Given that you are leaning on antiwhaling side, definition of "relevant" whale species are bound to be small. Obviously, I could have listed only non endengered whales. Instead, I presented the entire list. Once there is a disagreement over what "portion" of information is relevant, only correct action is to present the whole list and leave the jury(the reader) to make up their own mind. Secondly, it is a great advantage for anti-whaling side, if the public are kept thinking that whale is a single species which are endengered. Misinformation which has been successfuly promoted in the past. So stop trying to block information which correctly show the existence of different species of whales as well as its different conservation status. It is up to the readers of the article to make their subjective judgement in regard to "overall" conservation status of the whales. It is not upto you or I to decide it for them. FWBOarticle

You are writing from your own personal POV, not the POV of the pro-whaling argument in general. This is unacceptable. Pcb21| Pete 09:29, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please. When did RedList become my POV. The title of the section is "The conservation status of whale species" and the list gives exactly that. I don't know what your problems are but get over it. FWBOarticle 22:07, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Again, you are not using common names. You are using very old fashioned whalers names such as Pot Whale. These have not been used by anyone for fifty years at least. They are clearly damaging to the article whatever your POV with respect to whaling and yet you repeatedly reinsert them. I am bored and fed up of trying to NPOV the article and being accused of anti-whaling POV. As I have stated before, my personal POV is much more to the whaling side than anti- compared with my peers in my and many other countries. Yet simply because I will not your unambigiously POV statements to stay, you continue to accuse me of being something I am not. Pcb21| Pete 13:29, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I pull the name from the list. There are several names in the list but I used the one which are more easily reocngnisable. "These have not been used by anyone for fifty years"? Well, I beg to differ because I got that name from the list. Seconldy, the existence of "common names" only excuse you to change or add such easily reognisable name in addition to what you call obscure name. You have no excuse for delting it. FWBOarticle

Wrong. They are on the list because of backwards compatibility. You are just showing your own ignorance. Pcb21| Pete 09:29, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Then, add/replace the names. Be my guest. Your insistence on deletion is what doesn't make sence to me. I think it showing your bias but that is my POV. FWBOarticle 22:07, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"And lastly, if someone didn't merge two separate sections, we wouldn't have had this entire debate in the first place."

The prose is much better than the tit-for-tat bullet lists which were a relic of a very old version of this article whose time had gone. Pcb21| Pete 13:29, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That is an irrelevant argument. You could have simply wrote section for anti-whaling argument without the use of bullet lists and leave the prowhaling section to the other side of the camp. Somewhat, you merged both section in addition to eliminating bullet list then presented pro-whaling argument from your perspective. I'm still going along with your project. At least what I expect from you is not to mess with other side of argument as long as proper attribution has been made. FWBOarticle

This is preposterous. Are you telling me that I am not allowed to edit parts of the article you don't want me to edit? Pcb21| Pete 09:29, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No. Just that you are somewhat hellbent on blocking RedList for reasons which I think are extremly weak. And I'm guessing that this is something to do with your anti-whaling stance. For this reason, I'm infering that, "maybe", you may not be the right person to present pro-whaling side of argument due to your inability to supress your bias. I'm happy to leave it to arbitration process but I hope we don't get to that point. I personally think that you have no case in this particular instance. RedList is impartial to pro/anti whaling debate. The section itself is about "The conservation status of whale species". RedList is exactly that. FWBOarticle 22:07, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lastly, I should mention that "I" and pro-whaling side find the information to be relevant. So you should not delet the list for that reason alone. You are free to provide commentary to the list from your anti-whaling perspective. You are certainly free to comment that most species on the list are not currently listed on the target though I beg to differ on such interpretation. Also, you are free to provide additional information. I might find the information to be irrelevant. But I know that is my POV. The fact that you find the information relevant is a good enough for me to leave it alone because I don't find myself qualified to decided what is relevant for you. If all of us start deleting information/argument based on our POV, then nothing can be said. FWBOarticle

I have been trying to present both sides of the debate, as occurs, for instance, at IWC meetings and on websites and on docks around the world. You seem blithely intent on writing your own personal view of the world. Please do that at your own webpage, not at Wikipedia. Pcb21| Pete 09:29, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You have done fairly good work in other sections. That, however, doesn't apply for the section we are disputing. You have failed present counter argument of pro-whaling side in fair light or not included the counter argument at all. My contribution was to correct this imbalance. Secondly, "the aim [of Wikipedia] is not to write articles from a single objective point of view ... but rather, to fairly present all views on an issue, attributed to their adherents in a neutral way." There is nothing wrong to present pro-whaling side of argument here. I also have no problem for the anti-whaling side to present their case. You on the other hand are using incorrect understanding of NPOV policy to censor information for your own agenda. I have gone back to the Red List and checked the entry for each whale species listed including Melon Headed Whales. All of these species are or were hunted. Inc case of Melon Headed Whales, it is currently hunted like all other species on Least Concerned List. So what is your problem. This section is about whaling. These species are hunted. And the section concerned is specifically about the conservation status of whale species. Are you afriad that the list contradict the public perception that "whale=endengered". I'm getting very tired of this. Lastly, please please respect other people to contribute to this site even thought that may not fit with your agenda. You seem blithely intent on dictating your own personal view of the world on others. Please do that at your own webpage, not at Wikipedia.FWBOarticle

Repeating back what I have said and swapping a few words around is a very childish method of "debating". If you are tired of this, feel free to take any text you want from Wikipedia to another editable mirror such as Wikinfo (http://www.wikinfo.org/) where writing from an particular point of view is accepted and encouraged. Pcb21| Pete 11:39, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is your argument and accusation which is rather childish. You seems oblivious to the fact that your argument or accusation apply more aptly to your side, something my "method of debating" make it obvious. Please focus on the issue, that is RedList. FWBOarticle 13:16, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I already offered a compromise on the redlist thing that included your personal assertion about future possible hunted species. Pcb21| Pete 14:26, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't check the main page, first. I also appreciate your correction of the lists thought you somewhat later decided to delete it. I have kept your graph but reinstated the list. I have also mentioned about Sei Whales which is on the endangered list but still hunted. If you want to, add Sperm Whales. If my recollection is correct, it is still hunted under scientific whaling despite its status listed as valunable. The improved version of the list with Wikepedia links let the readers to access for much detailed knowledge of each species. A significant improvement in my view. I have also included Extinct and Critically Endangered so that each different ranks of categories in the RedList can be put in more proper context. FWBOarticle 15:07, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have deleted Atlantic Grey Whale. It is not listed in the Red List and this section specifically state that it is the RedList. The reason "atlantic" grey whale didn't get the menion is not mine or you to decide. I'm fine with your deletion of Killer Whales. FWBOarticle 15:59, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is not on the red list because it was made extinct by whalers before the red list existed. The real reason you are removing it is that it doesn't support your point. You deliberately added the empty sections to the front of the list in order to create an air that whale species are by large safe (and thus support a hunt). I am re-addding it. Pcb21| Pete 16:03, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Note also the red list does talk about the extinct Atlantic Gray Whale population here in the "Assessment Information : Justification" and "Distribution: Aquatic Regions" and "Detailed Documentation" sections. Pcb21| Pete 16:07, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

RedList are certainly capable of including species which gone extint before the list started. I'm merely pointing out that RedList do not have any whales in extinct category. I understand that you are not happy with this. However, it is not right to change third party information simply because you have different POV. For example, Japanese government insist that Sei Whales is no longer endangered. The number of Sei Whales "may" indicate as such. However, RedList has another criteria, that is the drastic reduction of population within three generation. For this reason, Sei Whales are still classified as endangered thought the RedList mention that it may be appropriate to move this species to Valunable in the future. Still it is inappropriate for me to reclassify Sei Whale to Valunable list simply because I disagree with RedList's categorisation. It is also improper for you to insist inclusion of Atlantic Grey Whale in the RedList.FWBOarticle

I have also noticed that Atlantic Grey Whale are described as "population" not species. FWBOarticle 16:44, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is it or is it not misleading to write "Extinct: None"? Pcb21| Pete 19:32, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No "species" of whales has gone extinct. At least that is a view expressed by RedList. However, Grey whales in "Atlantic" has gone exsinct but, as a species, Grey whales survive in North Pacific and the currently listed as Lower Risk. I have explained this nuisance clearly in the section. To indicate that a species has been driven to extinction is to misinform the public in favour of anti-whaling as it overinflate the danger of commercial whaling. FWBOarticle 23:13, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Extinction of Grey Whale in Atlant amounting to an extinction of a whale species is your POV. And you cannot present your subjective opinion as a fact in hope of inflating the danger of whaling. It is stated in this site that "The Red List is established upon strong scientific base, and is often recognised as the most authoritative guide to the status of biological diversity." IUCN's describe Atlantic Grey Whales as a population of Grey whales and not as a species. This isn't the place to let someone's ideology to override science. FWBOarticle 03:51, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

For your interest you make like to know that the north west Pacific stock (coincidentally the stock that Japan wants to take a few from, despite there being less than 30 breeding females left) is listed as critically endangered. It is the north-east population that is stable - leading to a lower risk possibility that the entire species will be wiped out, which is the headline status listed by the IUCN.

Yes, I can see that you are not unhappy with IUCN presentation. That goes the same for pro whaling side which believ that the list is too risk averse and are not impartial. Both side bitch on the list and those bitching should be presented outside of IUCN as disenting views with proper attribution. FWBOarticle 17:27, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

All three stocks are (were) probably proper subspecies according to research. The Atlantic stock may indeed have been a separate species - although there are no specimens left for us to check and be sure. It is taxonomic practice to minimize the number of recognised species in cases like this.

"probably" is the key here. Even you appear to admit that your assertion is not proven case, which explain IUCN view.

All of this is as much to relieve you of your ignorance as much as anything. I will not accept writing "Extinct: None" as a neutral reading. It gives a unacceptable misleading impression that whaling has not done much harm in the past. If you dogmatically insist that such a list can only talk about species; rather than be useful, we shouldn't have the list at all because neither side will accept it.

Or that all of this is as much to relieve you of your ideology as much as anything. Even you admit that you haven't got enough evidence to back your assertion that Atlantic Grey Whale as species. The list say conservation status of whales species. The list gives exactly that. Listing atlantic grey whale would overinflate the danger of whaling. What I can suggest is for you to set up separate list which talk about population but I believe no comprehensive list from the third party exist. You are not allowed to present population as species.

The IUCN comprehensively lists population status for all populations. Of course the current presentation bends over backwards to make clear that it is a population not a species. Pcb21| Pete 23:02, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I wrote the response in the bottom of this section. FWBOarticle 05:08, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As of for your non sequitur about the Sei Whale, I find it faintly flabbergasting that you such suggest that a classification of "vulnerable" would make it alright to hunt them. Do you actually know what the word vulnerable means?

That is a derivative issue about the scientific fact of conservation status of Sei Whale. I'm merely stating that Japan wish to downgrade the status of number of whale species. You, no doubt, would find that "unacceptable".

The Japanese design to downgrade the alert has been in the article for some time. If I found it unacceptable I could have easily got rid out it. In fact I prefered to expand upon the point - Japan wants the downgrading for the northern population only. Pcb21| Pete 23:02, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The point is that I find editing of Conservation Status according to Japanese Government view to be unacceptable because it is dishonest misrepresentation. I have my view on this matter but this does not excuse me if I go against NPOV policy of this site. FWBOarticle 05:08, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh and it's Gray not Grey. Pcb21| Pete 08:45, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Engrish does not mine strong point. :D FWBOarticle 17:27, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The irony about this is that it was aboriginal subsistance whaling that lead to the extinction. (Of course it depends on what "aboriginal" is supposed to be.) --Hokanomono 09:29, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

I believe that the extinction was caused by a mixture of whalers from different locations, including British, "American" (i.e. British based in what is now America). In fact everyone except Japan. Maybe we should slap a big "not caused by Japan" notice on it and see if it makes FWBO happier :-). Pcb21| Pete 10:01, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, you may be suprised to find that this issue has high prominence in Japan, that is it was anti-whaling countries which are largely responsible for the collapse of the whales population. Japan enaged in large scale whaling much later when those anti-whaling countries lost interst in whale oil and had no use for whale for themselves.

I am not at all surprised, given that I know the history of whaling. As I am not adding cruding nationalist POV to articles, it is not a problem for me to be embarassed about the things that the country I come from did wrong in the past. Pcb21| Pete 23:02, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh so you slap a big "not caused by Japan" notice on your daigram for me. Thank you. ;p. FWBOarticle 05:08, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My objection.

IUCN is the most authoritative third party information in this matter. The ruling from IUCN ought to be respected. That is Atlantic Grey Whale is a population of Grey Whale in Atlantic.

Inclusion of Atlantic Grey Whale would force the list converted from simple IUCN list to the list based on IUCN list. This will significantly lower the impartiality of overall the presentation.

If one is allowed to alter impartial third party based on one's POV, there is no justification to prevent others from doing the same. Japan, for example, are insisting on classifying several secies on the above list. Sei and Mink Whales and few others. No doubt Pcb21 would find such move to be biased and improper.

FWBOarticle 16:59, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

All the information I have written about the Atlantic GrAAAAAAAAAy Whale is included on the IUCN page I cited. Your suggestion that I am "over-ruling" the IUCN is false. Both the IUCN and this article agree that the AGW population is extinct. Pcb21| Pete 17:08, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And it appear that all of us now agree that Atlantic GrAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAy whales :D cannot be listed as species. And you are editing IUCN "LIST" for the conservation status of "SPECIES". As I said, you are entitled to present information regarding whales "POPULATION" somewhere else. However, you should not alter IUCN Red List. Oh, I propose that we respond it here first before edit the main page about Atlantic Grey Whale. We both know that we will engage in delete/edit war, why not minimise it. FWBOarticle 17:35, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I should make it clear that I do not have problem with you presenting the lists of population status. Nor I intent to interfear about mentioning extinction of Atlantic Grey Whale population. You might notice that I intially moved Atlantic Grey Whale into paragraph below. I'm not doing it now because I can't be bothered to do it for each edit. What I have problem is you interfering with me showing that according to RedList there is no whale species which has gone extinct. I understand that you think there is a "possibility" that this assesement may be wrong but even you appear to agree that this is not the dominaint scientific opinion. Secondly, by including Atlantic Grey Whale in the list, the description of the list have to be downgraded from IUCN Red list to the list based on IUCN list. This is to do great injustice to the impartiality of the presentation. Thirdly, before inclusion of Atlantic Grey Whales, it was comprehensive overall list of the conservation status of whale species. By including Atlantic Grey Whales, one population of whales species, you wreck the comprehenvie nature of that presentation. I agree whole heartedly that more detailed information about population specific information of EACH species would be significant improvement especially when it can be refered back to the current target of scientific whaling and abologinal subsistence whaling. But this should not be done in manner which wreck the distinction of species and population. IUCN list do recognise different population of each species but they do not specifically assign conservation status for each population. Therefore, it is inappropriate to mix population list in IUCN. And lastly and most importantly, each status in the list from extinct/eandangered/valuneable/LowRisk has specific scientifict qualifications. Atlantic Grey Whale does not fall into this specific scienfitic qualifications. Grey Whales is included as Low Risk. Atlantic Grey Whales is not species. The each rank is applied to species. By including Atlantic Grey Whales in extinc cagegory, it poison the integrity of othere classification. So Please leave Atlantic Grey Whale out of IUCN list. You are free to create more comprehensive list for each whales population. As of conservation status of each population, I urge you to find impartial source. If I find the source to be biased, I will be compelled to make counter presentation. I leave IUCN list because I consider to be impartial enough though Japanese government side find it not to be their liking. FWBOarticle 05:08, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dude, sorry, you continuing to write Grey when I have asked three times for you to spell it correctly is making me too angry to write a rational response. Pcb21| Pete 06:26, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

GrAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAy. Happy. ~

Grey and Gray is both correct spelling by the way. ;) ~

Not of the species it's not. Proper names retain their original spelling. Thus even in British English it is Gray Whale, Medal of Honor, Pearl Harbor, World Trade Center, etc.. etc.. Pcb21| Pete (kind of amused) 07:29, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Anyway, here is what you should use to built separate conservation status list based on population

http://www.cites.org/eng/append/appendices.shtml It is third party impartial source. You have to do fair bit of work by yourself though. FWBOarticle 08:05, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

CITES is less finely grained than the redlist which is less finely grained the Cetacean Specialist Group report (available from the web site http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/sgprofiles/cetaceansg.htm). Pcb21| Pete 08:59, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Can someone tidy up the presentation by use of table format so it won't take up too much space? FWBOarticle 20:02, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Intelligence

Somewhat you seems intend to revert

"However, those in favour of whaling point out that pigs are also amongst the most intelligent of mammals and this fact would make the entire assertion by anti-whaler redundant unless it is about vegetarianism."

into

"However, those in favour of whaling point out that pigs are also amongst the most intelligent of mammals."

Now, the above sentences are in response to

"Anti-whaling campaigners and nations say that cetaceans are amongst most intelligent of all non-humans and thus it is morally wrong to kill them for food"

While anti whaling side are not only permited to mention fact (cetaceans being the most intelligent), they were given space to make moral inference (thus it is morally wrong to kill them for food). On the other hand, prowhaling side are only allowed to mention fact (pig also being the most intelligent) but are denied to make moral inference (this fact would make the entire assertion by anti-whaler redundant unless it is about vegetarianism.). If you want, you can go to Japanese Wikepedia site about whaling issue. Use translation programme if you can't read Japanese. This point is made explicitly. FWBOarticle 15:31, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"知的生物としての鯨

捕鯨反対派は、クジラの巨大な脳容積や、音波によって同族間の緊密なコミュニケーションをとっているらしいことを挙げて、「知能が高い動物を食べるのは残酷である」と主張する。

それに対し、推進派は、芸をする豚などを例に挙げ、「豚も高度な知能を持っているが、なぜ食べることが許されるのか。クジラが駄目で豚がよいというのは、単なる文化的差異に過ぎない」と反論する。これについて、反対派は、「豚は神様が家畜として与えたもうたもの、鯨はそうではない」という反論をすることがある。"

I have proposed a compromise in the article. It says that on the intelligence point alone; it is inconsistent to say one thing for whales and another for pigs. Is that ok? Pcb21| Pete 15:53, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

ah, so you means you don't like the wording from anti whaling side that the issue is "irrelevant unless it is about vegetarianism". But that is the whole rallying cry of pro-whaling side. Whaling side believe that most objection about whaling equally apply to other practice. This is not just about the treatment of farm animals. What about culling of predator animals in farms (in which no one seems to be bothered about the time it takes to kill) or hunting for "fun" which is far indefensible. And I believe that it is a valid point to raise. You are free to present your counter argument.

I cited the HNA. Pcb21| Pete 16:26, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You are yet to explain to me why " this fact would make the entire assertion by anti-whaler redundant/irrelevant" are to be omitted. The attribution of POV is properly made to prowhaling side and IMO, it is inappropriate to censore it. Japan has repeatedly insisted that the issue of "cruelty" is outside of IWC's agenda and attempted to block any motion in this regard. I don't expect "intelligence" to become an issue in IWC but the stance that intelligence or cuelty is red-hearing has been long held position of prowhaling side. This should be mentioned. Obviously, if you disagree this POV, you are certainly entitled to express counter argument. FWBOarticle 17:11, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Organic growth; Method of killing

The cruelity issue being red hearing given the killing of farm cattle is again common argument raised by prowhaling side. Here are an example from High North Alliance. http://www.highnorth.no/Cartoon/de-cu-to.htm You can get similar thing from here. http://www.highnorth.no/Cartoon/cartoon1.htm

This is the main objection to cruelty argument, not about recent improvement in harpooning technique. If you are not happy with my standard of English, you are welcome to correct and improve it. FWBOarticle 15:40, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have included this point, with link, to the method of killing section. Hope its ok. Pcb21| Pete 16:00, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Indigenous cultures

You also deleted issue regarding aboliginal susbistence whaling and accusation of racism and cultural imperialism. I call your attention to this two article from BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2003658.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1578812.stm

And a article from

http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Culture/ab-su-wh.htm

As you appear to be from u.k. you may not have come across this issue so often. However, it is very relevant issue especially in North America and Japan. So I consider the termination of the entire issue to be inappripriate. In your version, even the term "abologinal subsistence", one of three officially recognised category of whaling is not mentioned. If you are not happy with my English, you are welcome to improve on it.FWBOarticle 23:32, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am quite aware of the issue and all of the political tit-for-tat that followed from it thanks.

That whole section is about the "third category". What are you talking about? Pcb21| Pete 01:04, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your paragraph may be reasonable in term of correct use of English. It is awfully inadequate due to the failiure to discuss the issue involving the aboliginal subsistence whaling. Come on, this is one of the three officially recognised category of whaling. No article of whaling is complete without it. FWBOarticle 23:32, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Again, what do you think the paragraph was about? Pcb21| Pete 01:04, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I accept that you consider Japan's general charge of Racism/CulturalImperialism as well as specific charge of DoublStandard/Hypocracy in the matter of indigenous cultures to be "rant". However, as you can see from the bbc article, the fact that such charge are commonly accepted by japanese public and specifically commented by high ranking official is a fact. I have made correct attribution in this regard. I shouldn't have to remind you that NPOV does not mean non "objective" view ought to be censored. We merely present relevant views with correct attribution and Japanese view is certainly relevant. Whether that is a rant or not is POV.FWBOarticle 23:32, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I didn't see any quote marks. You were writing the accusations directly into the text. Pcb21| Pete 01:04, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I attributed accusation to Japanese media.

Please note

It is spelt "endangered" not "endengered". Thanks. Pcb21| Pete 07:12, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Engrish does not mine strong point. (^_^) FWBOarticle

Please note

In the context of the whale, it is spelt "Gray" not "Grey". Thanks. Pcb21| Pete 19:38, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC) (and yes, I know, English isn't your strong point.)

In any context its "aboriginal" not "aboliginal".

"cement" not "sement".

"harpooning" not "harponing".

"commercially" not "commerciall".

"racist" not "racisit".

"subsistence" not "subsistene".

"much" not "mcuh".

"scientific" not "sicientific".

"indigenous" not "indiginous".

"fraught" not "fraought".

"interchangably" not "interchangingly".

"communities" not "communties".

"Greenlandic" not "Greenlanding".

Note that in your recently added "Aboliginal [sic] Subsistence Whaling" every single sentence contains at least one spelling error or is grammatically incorrect. In most cases, both apply. Once it makes sense, maybe we can start to talk about how ridiculously pro-Japanese POV the whole thing is. Pcb21| Pete 00:55, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

New article

As I did with the Faroe Islands article, I've split off the aboriginal whaling section with a short summary left in place - as per the Wikipedia:Summary style policy. Previously we had two sections on aboriginal whaling - I hope I have merged them both into the new article - Aboriginal whaling in an NPOV way. At the same time I did a Engrish to English translation :-). Pcb21| Pete 12:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There is nothing particularly special about aboriginals here - I hope to break Whaling in Norway, Whaling in Iceland and Whaling in Japan as the sections get more substantial. Pcb21| Pete 12:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Whales Conservation Status

"these populations, whilst not regarded as separate species, are considered to warrant sub categorisation.". Does Red List state the reason for subcategorisation? If not it should merely state that these population is categories into different population.FWBOarticle 20:19, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Download the Cetacean Specialist Groups PDF I mentioned earlier. Then search for "genetic". There are 61 references, several of which are about maintaining genetic diversity.

No specific mention which justify this edit. Please make a quote if you want to restore the claim that these different whales are sufficiently unique. btw, I'm FWBOarticle. Vapour

And I really believe that we should archive this page. There has been significant rearrangement of the original article by you and me. It is good point to start anew. Me don't know how to archive a page. :)FWBOarticle 20:19, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I already archived it. The discussions still are too new. Pcb21| Pete 22:53, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, I can't use your link. Can you past link to PDF of the Cetacean Specialist Gropus. Secondly, "No species of Whales has gone extinc" is a fact. And that canpt be censored by your anti-whaling agenda. You can mention about the extinction of Atlantic Gray Whales population in Gray Whale section. FWBOarticle 08:32, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/actionplans/cetaceans/cetaceans.pdf

For crying out loud, NO ONE IS SAYING THAT THE ATLANTIC GRAY WHALE IS A SPECIES. Thus no-one is saying that a species of whales has gone extinct (at the hands of whalers). Please refrain from making that accusation again. That you wish to hide facts about extinct and critically endangered populations that the IUCN point out, not me, by putting them in the "Lower Risk" column is a pure indication of your POV.

It is also indicative of your lack of knowledge in this area. Let me ask you this - the last time you asked a whaler, or a conservationist, which ever side of the debate you like, do they talk in terms of species, or do they talk about populations?

I ask this because you seem under the delusion that species are the be all and end all. They are not. This is not just me saying this - this is absolutely the standard practice across all of zoology. My instinct is that you don't have that much familiarity with this area, and parroting what you have read on whaling.jp. Pcb21| Pete 08:49, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for the link. And it appear the reason for giving difference conservation status of population is not attributed to genetic difference. It merely describe some population to be genetically different. Therefore, I will alter it.

What DO you think that the status of populations is listed? When you read that PDF (just the opening ten pages or so will give you a feel) where is the emphasis? Populations! Again I repeat the suggestion that you do not have much familiarity with this area.

Secondly, I know you are not saying that atlantic gray whale is a species. Problem is that puting that into "IUCN List" is incorrect because it's conservation status is defined as the status of "taxion" and Atlantic Gray Whale do not have this classification. I have made allowwance to your insistence of inclusion of population gropus as appendix. But Atlantic population of Gray Whale cannot be presented in contradiction with IUCN LIST's conservation status qualification. If you are not happy about it, you can present these population's conservation status outside IUCN RED LIST. You are free to mention that souce of conservation status of each population come from IUCN or source quoted in IUCN. And yes, I know these different subspecies of whales can crossbreed. And me, you or zoologist can debate about the definition of species. The point I'm raising is that we should not distort IUCN RedList. IUCN says under the definition set by IUCN, EXTINCT category do not have whales taxtion. Four Species of whale are categorised as ENDANGERED. Mink Wales are "Near Threatened". Each category are specifically defined by IUCN and you ought to leave these definitions as they are. FWBOarticle 10:16, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have always only presented the same information available from the IUCN. In fact, for the last few revisions, I have presented exactly the same information as you. It is only the manner of presentation that we haven't agreed on. You want a "critically endangered" column empty for your own political purposes. You might say I don't want it empty for MY own purposes. My point is that as a scientist in the field, I am confident my presentation would meet with general scientific approval, and yours would not. Pcb21| Pete 10:26, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

O.K. then you can have whale population which has proper IUCN classification included in IUCN Red List. That means, Atlantic Gray Whales is out. You are free to mention its extinction somewhere else. FWBOarticle 10:44, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You have repeatedly refused to listen to me - as evidenced by your new claim that the extinct population of AGWs is not recognised by the IUCN. It is mentioned in three places in the IUCN AGW entry. Removal of valid, IUCN-approved information will from now on result in automatic revert. Pcb21| Pete 10:47, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not clear of your reference. Can you provide me with links and page number. If Atlantic Grey Whales is accorded separate population status with proper IUCN conservation category, then go ahead. It appear that several population of Righ Whales among others indeed have proper IUCN status assigned so I apologise for the deletion of these whale population.FWBOarticle 10:54, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

P.S. I won't delete AGW till then.

From http://www.redlist.org/search/details.php?species=8097

"The Gray Whale was extirpated from the North Atlantic within the last 300–400 years, so the only extant representatives of the family Eschrichtiidae are the Gray Whales in the North Pacific."

"The Gray Whale became extinct in the North Atlantic in early historical times but survives in the North Pacific, where there are two geographically separated populations."

Pcb21| Pete 11:07, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've reconsidered and taken the AGW out of the table, as the other Gray species are granted specific codes, but extinct populations are not - that just the way the IUCN list works. I mention the extinction beneath the table. Sorry for the fuss. Pcb21| Pete 16:24, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

no problem. You were right abcout Critically Eandangered list anyway. FWBOarticle 17:50, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re-org

Re new sections: Hi FWBO. I know we've had a tricky time building a working relationship, so I wanted to try to take things slowly with your most recent additions... however a lot of what you adding is repeating what we have at International Whaling Commission. We need to take a look at the logical arrangement of sections... things seem to getting a bit out-of-hand. Maybe we should draw up some a layout plan here? Pcb21| Pete 19:55, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

FWBO - I reverted some changes that seemed to make the article even more all over the place. Where are you going with this? Pcb21| Pete 23:00, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree we are having some significant change in the presentation. It is my view that having some concise history, political mechanism and three whaling category of IWC is just so important in modern whaling that it should be discussed as a separate section. Once the text become too big, then it could be farmed out to the separate IWC article for further reading. I have noticed that IWC article itself is not that detailed. Secondly, I felt that the argument in regard to pro and anti whaling in term of conseration status of whales section were getting too big and the information ought to be split between the debate about conservation (anti whaling) and resource utilistion (prowhaling) and the scientific facts about conservation status of whale. I thought that the conservation status can be more appropriately placed in the modern section. I will do bit of copy and paste to see how it works. FWBOarticle

Using a table for conservation status

I saw you converted to a table. Although I think the list looks neater (and others do too in general see Wikipedia:How to use tables and its talk page), lets stick with the table so that I don't revert everything you do :)! However we cannot have, for example, the Pacific Blue Whale subspecies in the Endangered column - it must go in the Lower Risk/CD column where it belongs - similarly for the other populations - else the table simply has data in the wrong columns. Note this means that some populations "move to the right" (i.e. are listed under a less endangered column" and others "move to the left" - it is not all one way. Pcb21| Pete 07:49, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Note on species

I saw you undid my change wrt to right whales species. Actually the North Pacific and North Atlantic Right Whales are two separate species ( Eubalaena glacialis and Eubalaena japonica)

Gray Whale

The Gray Whale northeast population appears both in the 'critically endangered' column and the 'lower risk' column. The gray whale page has it as lower risk. Should it be under both?

Revert, please

Could someone revert the document back to last version made by Apyule? 61.91.145.67 vandalized the article, and I don't know how to revert.

Done. If you want to see how to revert a page, have a look here. --Apyule 05:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

POV: User:Hokanomono

It is my belief that Hokanomono has a chip on his shoulder against Greenpeace or anything anti-whaling. I base this on the fact that he reverted one of my updates with the description of 'removing greenpeace propaganda'. I have no affiliation with any 'animal rights' group.

I recently updated the Japan section to reflect the global trends and reactions to Japanese incursions in Australian coastal waters, the current trend of whale being on Japanese school menu's and the argument that it is 'culturally acceptable' to slaughter whales under the guise of 'research' yet use the produce for food.

This is all based on various media sources (Reuters, news.com.au, CNN) and citing references would be moot as it was global news in each instance. Therefore the validity of my edit is not in question.

I wish to ask that Hokanomono cease unthought reverts on his knee-jerk POV receptiveness on this subject and instead heed to a more Wikipedian code of conduct on the matter. I am writing this for the benefit of those who noticed my revert and for Hokanomono. Jachin 23:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, in a moment of rage I deleted too much. I was upset by the paragraph which states as a fact that Japan would try to buy it's way back to commercial whaling. Allegations like this should be quoted as what they are: allegations from greenpeace and media citing greenpeace, but not facts so far. However, it may be that this section is not the right place to discuss these allegations.

Phrase your text to just explain the state of discussion and it will not be POV but a valuable contribution to the article. -- Hokanomono 07:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

POV: User:Jachin

Part of your entry states:

"In recent years, through its fisheries aid funding, the Japanese Fisheries Agency has been amassing a group of small, impoverished island states such as Tuvalu, Palau and Grenada (among many others, plus African countries such as Guinea and Benin, and even the landlocked Mongolia) to create a pro-whaling bloc in the International Whaling Commission, in an attempt to "buy" its way back to commercial whaling."

That "may" or "may" not be the case, but if you wish a NPOV, you should also include the anti- whaling lobbying to include countries such as Switzerland and various other landlocked countries who do not or have never been whaling countries. As it stands, your first paragraph really does resemble Greenpeace propaganda. I really "should" write a paragraph or two on how the present state of affairs at the IWC is a direct result of anti-whaling "gaming" of the politics and make-up of the IWC Plenary commitee. Whilst I´m at it, I´ll include how the plenary committee politicians have ignored many aspects of the scientific committee´s recommendations for the last 15 years or so

That wasn't posted by me. Check the history. That was part of the original Japan entry as far as I'm aware. Jachin 08:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The Switzerland argument does not seem to be valid. A landlocked country could still consider whaling to be a cruel practice that should be banned, while it is more difficult to see why a landlocked country like Mongolia would fight for a resumption of commercial whaling which it does not have any economic interest in. Tomtefarbror 15:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

As for this :

"This is backed up by the fact that all whale meat from 'research harvested whales' is sold to resteraunts, recently even becoming a menu item in certain Japanese school cafeteria's under the guise of it being a 'cultural dish'. This indicates that the whales were killed for cultural dining purposes and not research, which would be in direct breach of the IWC's mandates."

It´s a requirement of their permit that the meat be sold to offset costs - It´s an IWC requirment / rule. I suggest you read the ICRW in detail, particularly Article VIII

So where is the 'research' factor? I don't think a carcass used in scientific research is safe for human consumption, but then again Japan has never published any of it's 'whale' research to date, so we'll never know whether it's safe or not.  ;) Jachin 08:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

What you "think" is your personal opinion ;) ...

Here are a list of papers submitted to the IWC by the Japanese Institute of Cetacean Research ( ICR ) to the IWC scientific committee

http://luna.pos.to/whale/icr_papers.html 217.83.102.114 10:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is a rather gross error to forget that is what IWC rules say. We should also note who lobbied to have that rule put in ;). Pcb21| Pete 09:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, just for the sake of fairness, have a read here http://luna.pos.to/whale/iwc_vb.html Propaganda or facts ? makes interesting reading either way - ( what´s good for the goose etc (eg) )217.83.127.249 15:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Numbers :

Japan Kills around 470 minke whales whales in the antartic each year - they plan to increase that to 900 and to add some fin and humpback whales in the antartic to the total number. So they do not " kill almost a thousand whales for ´research` - they do have a dolphin drive fishery which would knock the numbers up however, but that´s another subject entirely and has no place in this article.

Please do not rely on "media" sources in your edits - they are notoriously unreliable and biased in their own right.

Again you're jumping the gun, check the history, that was from the original article.  :) Jachin 08:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

07:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The numbers are a matter of public record (indeed they are on the iwcoffice.org website. It should be trivial to note the correct numbers with a citation - indeed the articles used to do this, and it would be a shame to make articles worse! Pcb21| Pete 09:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Done ;o)11:12, 3 November 2005

This article still seems to be strongly POV. For such a large quantity of material devoted to Japanese whaling, there is a tiny amount given to the views of the critics of the Japanese whaling programme. The only reason I can see for having such a large section devoted to Japan is because there is a lot of controversy surrounding it. Of course the best thing would be to cut this section down significantly, and include prominent mention of the controvertial nature of the subject. Certainly get rid of obviously POV wording such as "it is hypocritical and inconsistent". I might come back in a while and if no-one else has done a clean-up, I'll either attempt it myself or post "POV" and "Controversial" boilerplates on the article. Fuzzypeg 04:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you post in the IWC article as that is where any controversy arises concerning the legality of the Japanese hunt.SammytheSeal 07:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Please keep the Japan section in this article concise

A detailed description of all the various allegations and counter-allegations can go the Whaling in Japan and IWC articles. Pcb21| Pete 12:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Quite agree with you Pete, but in that case, lets remove or transfer the obvious bias out of the article. For Example : In recent years, through its fisheries aid funding, the Japanese Fisheries Agency has been allegedly amassing a group of small, impoverished island states such as Tuvalu, Palau and Grenada (among many others, plus African countries such as Guinea and Benin, and even the landlocked Mongolia) to create a pro-whaling bloc in the International Whaling Commission, in an attempt to "buy" its way back to commercial whaling. Such attempts have been hampered so far by the scarcity of further sovereign nations willing to surrender to what has been called the "Yen Diplomacy".

or comments such as this " under the guise of 'scientific research' "

it´s fairly plain that the article is anti-whaling biased SammytheSeal 12:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I am happy to work with you on improving it. Remember that you may have your own biases, that are hard to recognise in yourself. For example I thought I was writing neutrally when I wrote a lot of this article (and related articles) a year or so ago. Now I think that then I was biased and not giving the whaling viewpoint a fair crack. Now I probably have some other bias :) even though I think I understand the subject pretty well. Pcb21| Pete 13:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

As an example, take a look at the BBC News article - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4417462.stm - published today about the beginning of the South Pacific season. Is the BBC neutral on this issue, in your opinion? Pcb21| Pete 13:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

No Pete, I don´t think that the correspondent that wrote that article was completely neutral - It´s a combination of (mainly )fact and (some )mis-representation. We should be striving to present just the facts in the Whaling article - loopholes, politics, gaming and who said what when don´t really have a place there. I would like/intend to remove /rewrite various sections when time allows -(much of which Mattopia has already done incidentally )SammytheSeal 11:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

While I think that Whaling in Japan and IWC are good places for the details, I don't agree that there is an anti-whaling bias. --Apyule 13:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that most of the stuff in this section is crap that should be moved somewhere else. Given that this article is an overview of whaling, the section on Japan should really provide details on the history of whaling in Japan (which is the detail that is sorely missing. Anyone who knows when whaling was first introduced, etc. would be very useful), and Japan's current desire to push for an end to the moratorium, as well as the numbers and types that it catches. The bit about Australia's opinion is just out of place (there is a Japanese section in the article that tell's all about Australia's opinion, but doesn't mention anything from the Japanese opinions). Perhaps if people want to write Australia's opinion there should be another section of the article about Anti-Whaling countries, and the actions/threats of Australia/NZ and other antiwhaling nations could be moved there. Alternatively, there could be another page created about Aus vs. Japan on the whaling issue (hopefully where arguments from both sides can be included).

I also agree with SammytheSeal that the one section about buying votes is not totally NPOV. For a start, it doesn't state which organization is asserting that Japan is buying votes. The BBC article doesn't make that assertion. I think the comment can only really stay if the source can be tracked down. It seems pretty obvious that an allegation about this by an impartial group such as a UN commitee carries far more weight than the same allegation made by an anti-whaling group.

By the same token, the edits that SammytheSeal made include similarly out of place assertions that don't belong in this section (particularly because they are about IWC). I think all of the stuff about how the IWC has turned into a political forum of pro- vs. anti-whaling countries/organizations should be moved to the IWC section. Mattopia 14:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Mattopia, Agree that the NGO vote manipulation assertions are out of place in this article, but not when the japanese vote-buying assertions are allowed to stand. Allowing one, you have to allow the other, or remove both and add to a completely new page / and or IWC article SammytheSeal 15:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Reply to PCB21 - Apyule

Hi Pete, We actually have met once upon a time in a cold faraway place;). Yes, I try hard to keep my edits neutral or present a neutralising (opposite )point of view but it´s not the easiest of things to do when most folk rely on media as fact. I do understand the field/ subject pretty well from a professional standpoint as you might remember;). How´s about this - I´ll look over what "I" think should be changed / edited to provide a less biased article, communicate that to you for ummmmm review/discussion and we can go from there?. Be warned though, there are swathes I intend to adress/add to when I find the time;) some of which I´ll detail below in my reply to Apyule SammytheSeal 14:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

To Apyule, I´ll answer you here as opposed to your talk page so as to save repeating myself. Some anti-whaling bias ....

• " Anti-whaling groups say there is insufficient demand for even this relatively low level of whaling and that "Icelandic freezers are full with up to 40 tonnes of unsold whale meat and blubber".

Looks like a media article / NGO quote but whatever, If someone can provide independant references ..I see similar "facts" in the media even today regarding Norway´s "blubber mountain" ( which has´nt existed for a number of years )I´ll do some extra research of my own and get back to you on that one

• " In recent years, through its fisheries aid funding, the Japanese Fisheries Agency has been allegedly amassing a group of small, impoverished island states such as Tuvalu, Palau and Grenada (among many others, plus African countries such as Guinea and Benin, and even the landlocked Mongolia) to create a pro-whaling bloc in the International Whaling Commission, in an attempt to "buy" its way back to commercial whaling. Such attempts have been hampered so far by the scarcity of further sovereign nations willing to surrender to what has been called the "Yen Diplomacy".

Has no place in the whaling article - If anywhere, it should be in the Whaling in Japan article ( which incidentally, would probably be more correctly called Japanese whaling as most of their whaling operations are in the antartic ) it should also be pointed out ( as it did until you reverted it )that anti-whaling NGO´s did exactly the same in the lead up to the 1982 moratorium - and have continued to recruit anti-whaling nations into the IWC ever since. The politics or gaming in the IWC should´nt really be in the whaling article at all - they should really be in the appropriate articles ( IWC, whaling in Japan etc )

• " In 2005, the Japanese whaling fleet, under the guise of 'scientific research' "

(Sigh...) Japan conducts research under the auspices of the ICRW and has presented the results of said research to the IWC scientific committee. To allege that the hunt is commercial is simply flawed in view of the $/yen figures. It does not make a profit even when partially subsidised. (20% of total program cost in 1999 ) Here´s a quote from Dr Ray Gambell, former Secretariat of the IWC : " When the 1946 Convention under which we operate was signed, one of the major articles introduced by the USA was the provision for a government to be able to issue permits for research purposes. That has always been in the Convention and many governments over the years have caught quite large numbers of whales for research purposes but associated with that provision is whales are too valuable just to catch, measure and throw away. If you catch whales for research purposes, the requirement is that they are fully utilised and the products disposed of in a way that the government decides. In other words, the products have to be fully utilised and Japan is doing what every other government has done in previous years. It's using the whales for research, getting the research results which are sent to the Scientific Committee of the IWC and it's putting the products into the market place"

BTW Pete, it was the US who pushed to have that clause put in - they wanted to continue to hunt Sperm whales for Spermacetti oil, which was used as gyroscope lubricant.

• "The Australian government often criticizes the Japan government's actions on whaling, and threaten to initiate diplomatic and international court action against Japan. However, this is based on the fact that some of Japanese whaling is carried out in waters claimed by Australia as part of the Australian Antarctic Territory. While there is evidence that more than 400 whales have been killed in Australian Antarctic waters since 2000 by Japanese whaling vessels, the validity of claims to Antarctic territories are largely disputed internationally and have not been tested under international law."

This should also be in the whaling in Japan article

• " justified by the Norwegian industry as for scientific purposes."

Justified? It was for scientific purposes - I´d remove that.

• "Those opposed to whaling say that this export is a violation of the spirit of the IWC moratorium, which the High North Alliance says it adheres to. Commenting in June 2003, British fisheries minister Elliot Morley said "We believe the Norwegian whaling is against the spirit of the moratorium. Norway say that their commercial whaling is legal because they registered an objection when the moratorium was agreed by the commission, so under IWC rules they're allowed to continue hunting. But we think it goes against the spirit of the ban, and certainly their attempts to export the meat are illegal. They're desperate to find an export market, and that shows the whaling isn't for domestic consumption - and it's not sustainable."

Belongs elsewhere - The Norwegian hunt ( and export )is legal despite what Morley thinks - Norway conducts a sustainable hunt and their self- imposed quotas are way below what they would be allowed if the IWC finally adopted the RMS/RMP.

• "Anti-whaling campaigners say this method of killing is cruel, particularly if carried out by inexperienced whalers "

There are NO inexperienced whalers ( actually, that should read gunners ) onboard Norwegian whaling boats - there is a rigid program in place to test and check the abilities of the gunners, which they must attend yearly before the whaling season starts.( at their own cost incidentally )If they don´t pass the course, they have their gunner licence taken away. I suspect a similar program in Japan but will check. As to the rest of the " Organic growth; Method of killing " paragraph, I´d like to point out that there is NO 100% humane method of killing - the arguement that all whaling should be stopped because whales cannot be killed humanely is ridiculous - following that arguement, we´d all be vegetarians..

I´m not going to go anywhere near the subject of loopholes in the IWC at the moment. way too much work;)

Okey dokey, enough for now ;) comments? SammytheSeal 14:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Japanese section - reorg

I reorganized the Japanese section into more of a historical time-line. I hope this makes it NPOV enough that everyone is happy. There is already a huge section on vote-buying allegations in the International Whaling Commission page, so I added a link to that, and removed from this page. Mattopia 16:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the vote buying aspect is pertinent enough to be covered in this article, or at least mentioned. Along with the vehement protestations of Australia against the Japanese illegally fishing in Australian coastal waters as we speak, for the fourth day, with calls from the Prime Minister stating, "Over twenty years of whaling and still no research papers published, scientific research, yeah .. right." (Sydney Morning Herald, 24/12/2005).

Well, If your Prime Minister would bother to read the article on Wikipedia, he´s find this link to papers presented to the IWC scientific committee. http://luna.pos.to/whale/icr_papers.html SammytheSeal 08:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I fear the recent 'reorganisation' has made it too NPOV to the point where it is POV and not reflective of the abhorrent distaste of humanity. Whaling is one of the worlds most universally agreed upon 'evils' as such by all people except a minority of countries that still practise it.

Please try and avoid tarring "all people" with the same brush. I don´t find it "evil" at all and I don´t come from a whaling country either.SammytheSeal 08:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to point out that had Wikipedia been originated two hundred years ago, I would like to think POV or not, when slavery was begining to be phased out of the world it would have had the same outlook as enlightened and educated fellows and not be 'worried about npov' and instead detail it factually with no sugar coating. 211.30.80.121 06:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you equating slavery with whaling?SammytheSeal 08:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Recipe link

A link to a whale meat recipe page is not needed in this article. It adds nothing to the content of the article and would be like having a link to elk recipes in the hunting article. Plus, this is an encyclopedia, not a web directory. --Apyule 12:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Re : The economic argument

This section : " In particular, not a single country in the Southern Hemisphere is currently whaling or intends to, and proposals to permanently forbid whaling South of the Equator are defended by the abovementioned developing countries plus Peru, Uruguay, Australia, and New Zealand, which strongly object to the continuation of Japanese whaling in the Antarctic under the guise of " scientific catches".

Is´nt strictly true, Indonesia (Lamalera) has a small Sperm whale hunt and small numbers of killer whales, beaked whales and small cetaceans are taken, last time I looked, Indonesia is in the Southern Hemisphere.SammytheSeal 23:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

If there are nations that object to uteriorly motivated 'scientific catches' they should force the US to lift extortion of sanctions against Japan if it should lodge an objection against the IWC moratorium but they don't seem to care (mind you these nations' governments have a long tradition of imposing voodoo economic policies). Copue441 14:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)