Talk:Dolphin drive hunting

Method section

The "Method" section does not contain a description of the hunt methods or sources, and should be reworked or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LaloLoud (talk • contribs) 23:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Somebody decided to remove all the content in that section and replace it with a single sentence. Reverted it.BabyNuke (talk) 08:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section quote

Many are also sceptical about the intelligence of dolphins, saying that they can just be taught tricks like dogs. -- This statement is clearly wrong, based on other information about Dolphins in Wikipedia, the scientific articles quoted in Dolphin Intelligence and from other sources. The fishermen may still repeat it, but it should not be included in an encyclopedic article not even as quotation *unless appropriate comment is provided*. User:Hhanke

Added a note BabyNuke 21:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Whale species

I'd appreciate it if someone could confirm that the animals in the second photo are indeed Northern Bottlenose whales. I'm not 100% sure myself. The filename says pilot whale, but I believe that is incorrect as they have a more blunt "nose". BabyNuke 22:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

GA review

It's a nice article. However, there is one copyediting that should be done, before I say that this is a good article. This is actually related with criterion 1 of WP:WIAGA about well-written article.

In the references section, there are very long quotes written there. It's very hard to understand the article when a reader has to jump back and forth with footnotes to read the quotes. Furthermore, the text in the references section is small, making it even harder to read. By practice, when you want to take information from a source, there are 2 ways:

1. Simply grab the idea/meaning/information from the source, write it with your own prose and make a credit by using a citation, without the original quote. By citation, it means that you put only the article/journal/web/news/etc. citation form, complete with its author, title, etc. You may want to read WP:CITE on how to make a citation and further to use WP:CITET for using cite template. Note that cite template is not a requirement.
2. Put a direct quotation and don't forget to put also its citation at the end. It similar with what has been done here. However, do not put it in the References section, but directly embedded in the main text. You can use many templates for quotation. For example, Template:quotation, Template:cquote, etc.

You may put text in the footnotes for explaining something that is not directly attached to the subject, to avoid reader being distracted. Here's what footnotes are, quoted directly from WP:CITE:

What footnotes are normally used for

• Some publications use footnotes for both the full citation of a source, and for tangential comments or information of interest to the reader.
• Some publications use Harvard style notation for sources, and use footnotes exclusively for tangential comments or information of interest. In this case, in other words, footnotes are notes with relevant text that would distract from the main point if embedded in the main text, yet are helpful in explaining a point in greater detail. Such footnotes can be especially helpful for later fact-checkers, to ensure that the article text is well-supported. Thus, using footnotes to provide useful clarifying information outside the main point is fine where this is needed.

So I am going to put this article On Hold for GA. You can fix this matter in the meantime. I think 7 days of on hold period is more than enough. I think it is just moving footnotes back to the main article. — Indon (reply) — 15:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing. There is one image with copyright but no fair use rationale and one image with obsolete tag. Please fix license tags for these images also. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 15:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what the best solution will be and will probably fix it this weekend. BabyNuke 19:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

GA passed

I have seen improvements based on my review in the previous thread. Hence, GA is passed. I enjoy reading this article. It's compact, well-referenced, good sources, compelling prose and stays focus on the topic. Congratulations to the editors of this article for your hard work. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 08:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! BabyNuke 10:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Freemasonry ritual

The sentence ending, "the hunting is done by a select group of privileged fishermen, membership being decided by a sort of masonic ritual." is rather unsubstantiated. Whet sort of masonic ritual? Why is it sort or a ritual. Tell us more or tell us less; this is an encyclopedia. Williamborg (Bill) 04:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Then less, I have no further information on the matter. BabyNuke 09:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Reason for deleting the petition

There is nothing against posting a link to a more critical article or website providing that it adds to the article, however, the petition website does not add anything to the article but encouraging readers to speak out against it. Further, the statement that 20.000 dolphins are killed in drive hunts anually is absolutely incorrect. About 16.000 small whales are killed by Japan anually in various ways, the vast majority of them (some 14.000) being porpoises killed in harpoon hunts. The half a page worth of text there is reads like a piece of propaganda. Don't get me wrong, I oppose the practice myself, but I'll let the article speak for itself instead of linking to questionable petitions that in the end will bias the article. Putting that link there is like saying "now that you've read the article, you may want to sign this petition". BabyNuke 15:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Hmm. Well, I disagree with your last sentence, but if it has false information then it shouldn't be on there. Thanks for pointing that out. (and sorry for taking forever to reply)--TheAlphaWolf 01:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I support a link (and per WP guidelines) if it provides reasonable educational value the opposition is using against whaling and is objective (which is possible). But if there is any indication of "sign this petition now" or check out this next link about a global anti-hunting organization, then the article should not appear. The best link would be a scholar studying dolphins and simply their observations on whaling. I whole heartily agree that placing certain links at the end of a long article is akin to endorsing them which is what happened to many Iraq-related articles. 64.122.208.184 15:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Change of method

According the the source referend, the slitting of the throat is no longer allowed. If the editor that removed this portion (71.163.28.131) has any source that would suggest that the method has not changed, please provide this before removing this section. BabyNuke 15:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Unneccesary passage

"Well known are also the images from Iki Island taken in 1979 of a Japanese fisherman stabbing dolphins with a spear in shallow waters.[27]"

I believe this passage is either unneccesary or should be provided as a "related article" link because the incident in Iki had nothing to do with drive hunting. Tsumugi 03:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tsumugi (talk • contribs) 03:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

To quote the reference: "They began herding dolphins into a small bay, sealing it off with a net, and then killing them with spears." To me, that sounds like a drive hunt. BabyNuke 20:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverts in criticism section

I have reverted the following changes in the criticism section:

• The sentence that the reasoning was based on emotion and is thus not relevant. I've not taken this out entirely but tweaked the sentence a bit. It now reads: "Not all of the Japanese fishermen are convinced of this and also see this reasoning as being emotional and irrelevant and thus do not believe dolphins deserve to be treated any different from fish." - this is consistent with the reference used. This reference was removed in favour of a different one for no apparant reason, but this has change has been reverted.

• This comment has been removed: "...which fishermen believe are often used to distort the facts...". While the reference used does state that the fishermen believe protesters and campaigners distort the facts, that is not related to the photos and videos. Photos and videos, as long as they have not been manipulated (for which there is no evidence), do not distort facts. They just present the situation "as is".

• Further, changed "many Japanese" back to "some". Unless there's some clear polls out there of the amount of Japanese that feel this way or otherwise reliable literature on it it's going to be difficult to say "many Japanese" and be able to reference that statement. BabyNuke (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• The comment "do not believe dolphins deserve to be treated any different from fish." are taken from the ordinary fishermen. That's why I call it a strawman fallacy. My source is from the responsible people (chief of the whaling section at the Japanese Fisheries Agency and the chief of cooperative union).

• You need to respond my NPOV claim.

• It is said clearly in the source. Please let me know where did you get this "some". I believe there must be a clear poll or something. There is a sentence just above this. "The hunts are considered very brutal by many, ". please kindly let me know where you got this "many". Tarafuku10 (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• These are the hunters themselves yet you say their opinions less relevant? They're the ones that do this, I'd say their opinion counts.

• I'll agree that not mentioning that the killing method used is now (officially - since it's almost impossible to actually check) banned can distort the image somewhat. So I'll leave that comment in as it's valid. HOWEVER, that is in the end only a small part of what the videos shows and more recent videos only show the hunt and capture because the killing is no longer visible. It hardly disqualifies the footage entirely. Further, the reference used just does not mention any video.

• That many are against it is quite obvious. The massive amount of criticism is a good indicator for that. However, most of the support for the hunt comes from the locals it seems. And to define some, I take the dictionary: "of a certain unspecified number". That's clearly the case. Many suggests there's a lot but I find little evidence that many support this practice, while it's clear many oppose it (do you want a random poll to prove that?).

This section as is has had very little editing as of late, the article has passed a GA review and promotion. So it seems other editors did not come to the same conclusions as you. Please do not keep adding this back. I strive for NPOV as much as you do. So I strive to neither condemn the practice or to speak out in favour of those that practice it, but merely to report on it as objectively as possible. I don't think either one of us is interested in breaking the three revert limit rule - so please DISCUSS what edits you would like to be made HERE, then perhaps we can work it out together and come to something we can both (plus any other editors that may read this) agree on and not have this tug of war. BabyNuke (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• It is clear from the sources that who said that these reasonings were emotional. This is an official view from the responsible people so why not write it so that readers can see it official. "Do not believe dolphins deserve to be treated any different from fish" is a view from one fisherman (or a small group of fishermen) who doesn't represent all the fishermen in any capacity. Don't mix an official view and a casual comment in one sentence because it may mislead people. I also have a problem with the wording "dolphins deserve to" which I feel is patronising. Can't we just write "dolphins don't have to be treated..."?

• Congratulations on the article passing the GA but it doesn't mean I can't challenge its neutrality. You are not still responding to my NPOV claim. I am prepared to rephrase it as far as the neutrality is guaranteed. Fishermen's disbelief on campaigners should be mentioned in the sentence.

• You really disappointed me on this. However obvious it may seem to you, you still need to make your statement verifiable. Just like I did. Please don't you think you can get away with "It's obvious" because I'll never let you.

• I accept your edit on this. Thank you. But this is a good example how one can mislead people just by not mentioning a fact or two.

You ask me to discuss. I am just doing what you are doing. Write comment here and edit the article. As far as I am concerned, we are having a good discussion. Sorry I made "discuss" lowercase without your permission, as it looked really loud. I am helping you to make this article better. Tarafuku10 (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The current wording I find okay now, I won't go wreck my brain over the word "some". I'll leave the whaling support statement in for now though I am under the impression that relates to the larger whale species and not the drive hunts - and these are quite different. The only statement I refuse to accept is that the videos are seen as an attempt to distort reality. The reference used does not mention videos AT ALL, so there is no basis for this claim and I've now mentioned that the killing method used in the most known video is banned officially at least (and this has already been in the article for ages in the line of text supporting the screen cap). And please, if you add a reference, don't just put a link between two ref tags, make them uniform with the rest of the article. BabyNuke (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I still believe the source is relevant because fishery union claim campaigners misrepresent to the media, and photos and videos are essential parts of media reports. But I guess we need compromise from both sides, so let it be for now.

You wrote you strove for NPOV and I don't doubt it. But I still believe this article needs a lot of work in terms of NPOV. For example, I originally intended to make a slight tweak on the Solomon Islands section but, after I checked the source, I found out the cultural aspect of the hunting described in the source was somehow dropped in the article. Another example is photos. There are 5 photos in the article. All of them show dead animals and some are bloody. (I guess I don't have to remind that any slaughtering is bloody). If you look at similar articles, Fox hunting doesn't show any dead animal. Deer hunting has one picture that show dead deer but it doesn't seem that brutal as it's a 100 year old monochrome photo. Hunting has 2 photos but they don't seem gory either. Other meat-related articles (Beef, Pork, Kangaroo (meat) etc.) don't have such images. So I can safely conclude that this Dolphin drive hunting article unproportionally puts emphasis on a brutal aspect of hunting, with or without intention. For me, this article is a propaganda piece.

In the FA candidate discussion, one reviewer asked "Does criticism only apply to Japan?" and you answered "Strangely enough, it does." I think we need to find out why it does to make this article featured. Tarafuku10 (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

With regards to the cultural aspect, that is mentioned. In the older version before it was changed it already said: "Though they also eat the meat of the animals, a second reason for hunting the dolphins here is for their teeth, which are used in jewelry and seen as a form of currency on the island." Mentioning it is used as jewelry and currency is mentioning it is a form of culture is it not?

The photos, well - if you can come up with some nice free to use photos on the subject feel free to add them. Photos of drive hunting are just likely to involve pictures of the subject matter, which happens to be bloody at times. The two photos from the Faroe Islands were not taking by some animal welfare organisation to protest the hunt but instead by a local, who uploaded them to wikipedia. So they're very much showing this from how a local would see it. Also, the animal in the photo in the "entertainment" section isn't dead, just to point that out. For some none-gory alternatives that might be a nice addition to the article: I could imagine a photo of protesters with banners or a photo of the ships out at sea hunting the dolphins down, or perhaps also a photo of dolphin meat being sold.

About criticism, the bulk is aimed towards Japan. Look around yourself and you'll find that if you look for drive hunting, Japan will come up much more often than any of the other places. I can't really help that that's the case. As for why it is, I think it may be in part because both the Solomon Islands and the Faroe Islands (the only other two places where it happens on a large scale) are quite remote places and so what happens there just doesn't receive as much attention. BabyNuke (talk) 11:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, jewelry and money relate to the culture but I didn't say all the cultural aspects had been dropped although I admit I didn't make it very clear. If you read the source, you see how important the hunting is to the life in the island. On the contrary, the hunting was rather represented in an exploitative way in the article, in my opinion. OK. Please allow me to rephrase this. It is a way of how it was represented. My claim was that it was misrepresented.

Surely fishermen are proud of what they are doing just like any other professionals are, but I don't think who took photos matters to the neutrality. It is editors who choose and present photos, and, with an intention, editors can put a spin for viewers to believe what editors want them to believe. I don't have good images myself now so I'll add one when I find it.

Thank you for sharing your view on "why it does" with me. Now I am sure you'd like mine in turn. I believe this campaign has something to do with Anti-whaling countries' nationalism. These campaigners are trying to sell to their own nations the idea "The Japanese may be economically successful but you guys are morally more developed and more conscientious than these cold-blooded b*stards." Campaigners can also leverage xenophobic sentiment against Japan for quick money (economic conflict and WWII only apply to Japan out of the three). Or it may be something similar to what the British did to the Dutch when both were competing economically 2 or 3 centuries ago. The British tried to spread bad image of the Dutch, coining the words like Dutch treat or Dutch uncle. I can assure you that putting up bloody images and trying to paint these fishermen as cruel, uncivilised second-class citizens will never work because this is the tactics typically employed by lowly tabloid newspapers that try to get attention by being sensational and numbing peoples logical-thinking for sake of their self-interest (selling more copies). As you know, these newspapers are always despised. But it might suit some campaigners because they can continue to profit (raising funds) as long as the issue remains. Tarafuku10 (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the reality obviously is that when it comes to animal welfare, the "west" does no better than Japan (just look at factory farming). So one can argue that "we" have enough issues with regards to animal welfare ourselves to be protesting about animal welfare abroad. I once wrote a column on this with regards to the plans of Iceland to resume small scale whaling, wanting to catch a mere 39 whales and the international outrage this resulted in. It's such a massive double standard when you see what "we" do to animals. Possibly, by telling someone else he's doing something wrong we feel better about ourselves. However, that's all opinion - the article needs neither my or your opinion and it's only reporting on the criticism out there - fair or not. That I see it as a bit of a double standard at times is my opinion but adding this would compromise the neutrality of the article. BabyNuke (talk) 10:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

October 2007 incident

Weekly Sincho 29 November issue reported the Fishermen's version of the 2007 October incident.

When the fishermen tried to release smaller dolphins for a conseravtional purpose, the campaigners came into the sea again. The fishermen tried to get the campainers back to the beach because the fishermen feard dolphins getting agitated and out of control. Because the fishermen and the campaigners didn't speake each other's language, the fishermen used their fishing sticks to push the surf boards.

http://www.shinchosha.co.jp/shukanshincho/tachiyomi/20071129_1.html (japanese language) Tarafuku10 (talk) 12:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I find it a bit of a "saving our ass" story, but - I have reworded the article a little. Removed that she and the others were there to "free the dolphins" as that wasn't said. BabyNuke (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dolsling.jpg

Image:Dolsling.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Japanese term for dolphin meat?

Is there a Japanese term for dolphin meat, or perhaps an English one? Seems relevant to the article, if someone happens to be in Japan and come across it. 69.220.2.188 (talk) 06:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean a Japanese equivalent of a term "beef" for cow meat, or "australus" for kangaroo meat? No we don't have those special terms for food meat. Beef is just "cow meat" and dolphin meat is "dolphin meat" in Japanese. Tarafuku10 (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if I were in Japan looking for dolphin meat from someone who didn't speak English, what would I say? 155.138.3.21 (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Just taking a guess here, but i would think you would say the Japanese word for dolphin and the Japanese word for meat, equaling"Dolphin meat" ;)166.214.174.237 (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll see if there's any dead links. BabyNuke (talk) 11:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

All references checked and updated where needed. BabyNuke (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll try hard to improve the nuetrality and quality of this article. Tarafuku10 (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV: notorious and infamousFor Tarafuku

Since you think you needn't reply if I put something on your own talk page (does that not count or something?) and think you should just revert again without discussion, so just for you I'll copy + paste it here. Reply here in reasonable time with some good valid points and I'll let it stay, if you don't I'll revert you again and please don't drag this out just for the sake of "protecting" some of your fellow countrymen - it's a fucked up world we live in. The word infamous is used in no less than 13170 articles and notorious in 15939. So you've got work to do if you object to it here. Anyway, what I wrote:

"Notorious or infamous is not POV pushing. Let's face it, Taiji / Futa are not known because of their excellent animal welfare standards. The attention they receive is overwhelmingly negative, and as a consequence the words notorious and infamous do apply.

no⋅to⋅ri⋅ous –adjective 1. widely and unfavorably known: a notorious gambler. 2. publicly or generally known, as for a particular trait: a newspaper that is notorious for its sensationalism.

in⋅fa⋅mous –adjective 1. having an extremely bad reputation: an infamous city. 2. deserving of or causing an evil reputation; shamefully malign; detestable: an infamous deed.

Both apply. Futo / Taiji are mostly known in an unfavourable way, and they certainly have an extremely bad reputation. That's not wikipedia POV, that's just the common view that exists." BabyNuke (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope you enjoyed your Easter holiday and thank you for moving the discussion here.

The reason why I proposed to discuss the issue in this discussion page rather than my discussion page is that the discussion is not only between you and me. All the contributors who are interested should be given a chance to join the discussion. Therefore, it is not that I thought I needn't reply, but that I thought we should start the discussion here. If you have a specific reason why you had to start the discussion in my discussion page, please let me know. For the same reason, I changed the section title "For Tarafuku" to "POV: “notorious” and “infamous”" that is more descriptive of the discussion.

Your argument "The word infamous is used in no less than 13170 articles and notorious in 15939 (in English Wikipedia, therefore you can use these words in this particular page)" does not stand because what I am saying is not that those subjective terms should be purged from Wikipedia. And how many pages these terms are used on in Wikipedia, one can still challenge the use of the term on a particular page. For example, the subjective term "bad" is used in 60924 pages. If some school boy edits the George Bush page and inserts "George Bush is a bad President" (no offence to the US Americans, this is only an example), this boy will be immediately challenged. He may say "He is bad, everybody around me is saying so!" but he should be told that he can't write that and the world is not that simple and is much wider and more diverse than he can imagine.

As you see, if the subject that is described by "notorious", "infamous" or "bad" are arguable (i.e. if there are views that the subject is not "notorious", "infamous" or "bad"), the use of these subjective terms are inevitably challenged. As the hunt is conducted under the regulation of the Japanese government, the majority of the Japanese people support whaling, especially in the near sea, and the use of "notorious" and "infamous" is mainly from campaigners and newspapers in hard-core anti-whaling countries, "notorious" or "infamous" on their own should not be allowed to use to describe Taiji or Futo as they only represent the POV from a particular group of people.

Having said that, my purpose is not to purge these terms, I can even agree to the use of these terms on this page if they are suitably qualified such as "...is notorious among campaigners for its drive hunts" or "Also infamous among dolphin lovers is the town of Futo.", in this way, the readers clearly understand who believe the hunt is "evil, shamefully malign, or detestable". Tarafuku10 (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding the terms "campaigners" and "dolphin lovers" only seems to be about making it the group of people that find this objectionable smaller and thus yet again seems to me like an attempt to "protect" the hunters. I'll give you an example; bullfighting. I've seen major and respected newspapers such as The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/12/spain) and The Daily Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/5095035/Top-Spanish-matador-falls-victim-as-bullfighting-beset-by-economic-woes.html) apply the term notorious in this context. Would you argue that it's only a select group of people - campaigners and cowlovers - that find bullfighting objectionable? BabyNuke (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If you don't agree to the qualifiers ("dolphin lovers" and "campaigners"), please suggest your choice of the qualifiers. Tarafuku10 (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC) I just want to add that there is no "notorious" or "infamous", with or without qulifiers, used in the Wikipedia Bullfighting article. For me, Wikipedia caters for more diverse audience than The Guardian or The Telepraph whose main audience is the people in the UK that is one of the hard-liner anti whaling and anti bullfighting countries. And the first sentence of "Criticism" section of the Bullfighting says "Bullfighting is criticized by many animal rights activists, referring to it as a cruel or barbaric blood sport, in which the bull suffers severe stress and a slow, torturous death." It clearly qualifies that the criticism comes from "many animal rights activists". As this is the example you brought up, now I can safely expect that you will agree to the wording similar to this.Tarafuku10 (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the need for adjectives at all, the fact that Taiji is "well-known" or "infamous" is clearly described in the Protests section. Why not simply write:

The Japanese town of Taiji is as of now the only town in Japan where drive hunting still takes place on a large scale. In the town of Futo the last known hunt took place in 2004.

It's more concise and readable Matt77 (talk) 02:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I can go with Matt77's suggestion. Tarafuku10 (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, seems more simple and clever :) BabyNuke (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources not backing up material

I earlier culled 2 sources that did not state what they were sourced for. I read both sources entirely multiple times. Of course it seems the originator has taken issue with this. So I'm giving them the chance to clarify their position now.

Here is the first: "The catch quota set by the Japanese government allows for around 3,000 dolphins to be captured annually." http://csiwhalesalive.org/csi05402.html In no way does this source say 3000 or even "around 3,000". It says 2380. If anybody thinks 2,380 is "around 3,000" I have to question your NPOV and motives.

Here is the second: "These numbers do not include dolphins and other small whale species killed using various other methods however, such as offshore harpoon hunts, in which mainly porpoises are killed." http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20090923f1.html I'm very familiar with this article and nowhere in it can I see anything which discusses "various other methods" of killing whales. If somebody cares to clarify how they got that out of this article, please be my guest.66.235.9.94 (talk) 08:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries decides on the quota and records the numbers of animals caught and the methods used. They publish an annual report on this, stating per year the quota and the actual number caught. This is infact reference #2 in this article (statistics for the year 2005, the only year for which I can find the data online). It seems the link is dead now, thankfully google shows the page has just moved so I'll update the link accordingly (new link for 2005 figures; as used in the article). You are indeed correct that the 3000 figure is inaccurate, looking at the 2005 report, for that year the quota of the various dolphin species together adds up to a total of 4575 animals (not including porpoises, their quota was set at 17.700). I'll rewrite that section a little later and update it with more accurate figures as provided by the Japanese authorities. This report also makes mention of various other methods. The methods used to dolphins / porpoises according to the report: Hand-harpoon fisheries, trapnets, drive-hunting and "other coastal fisheries" (the last one isn't defined further). BabyNuke (talk) 12:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Those reports currently exist from 2000-2007. They are easy to find. Here is the 2007 version. http://www.jfa.maff.go.jp/j/whale/w_document/pdf/h19_progress_report.pdf

As for your supposed quota of 4575: once again that does not appear to be in the source. You will have to specify exactly how you came up with that number.

What we do know from the (2005) data is that Wakayama Prefecture (Taiji) accounted for a total of 1239 cetaceans hunted our of a total of 15600 across all of Japan. This is easily obtained from Table 8.66.235.15.125 (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I simply added up all the numbers in the 2005 source - the point being that you suggested the article wasn't neutral by presenting the figure of 3000 (I cannot trace back where that number came from; indeed the source used doesn't seem to agree with it) when it turns out the quota is actually considerably higher still. In the article I broke the quota down by species to be more specific. Thank you for the 2007 link, I will update the article accordingly since those figures are more recent. BabyNuke (talk) 12:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You do realize the number you came up with is for all of Japan, correct? Not just Taiji. The 3000 number was a reference to Taiji specifically, so I am not sure whether you realize the context or not.66.235.15.125 (talk) 02:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"In 2007, according to the Japanese government, 384 Striped Dolphins, 377 Bottlenose Dolphins, 320 Risso's Dolphins and 248 Southern Short Finned Pilot Whales were captured in drive hunts, for a total of 1,329 animals."

This is again not consistent with the source. The phrasing is misleading. You do mention the numbers include live animals, but only several sentences later. I don't see any reason we should not use the most accurate data available, as presented in the article.

384 Striped Dolphins, 300 Bottlenose Dolphins, 312 Risso Dolphins, 243 Southern Short Finned Pilot Whales were killed for a total of 1,239 animals in 2007. Another 77 Bottlenose Dolphins, 8 Risso Dolphins, 5 Southern Short Finned Pilot Whales were captured live for a total of 90 animals caught live.66.235.15.125 (talk) 02:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"The quota set by the government for the species that were targeted in drive hunts that year allowed for the capture of 685 Striped Dolphins, 1.018 Bottlenose Dolphins, 541 Risso's Dolphins, and 369 Southern Short Finned Pilot Whales"

The document does not specify the difference between quotas for Hand Harpoon and Driving. It reads like you are trying to use the quotas mentioned as only for drive hunting, when the document clearly shows they are hunted in several ways, and then asserting this assumption is fact. If you are going to reference the quota numbers it needs to be made clear those numbers include several other methods.66.235.15.125 (talk) 02:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It is consistent with the source, it's just not consistent with the way you want. In any case, I have no objections, so I'll change it. BabyNuke (talk) 12:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone please source ONE of these

"The dolphins are usually not caught and killed immediately, but instead left to calm down over night."

OR

"(This is in fact unusual; in general the dolphins are sorted, some for captivity, and the rest slaughtered immediately.)"

Not both. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 20:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Whale meat

Not wanting to get into an edit war so I'll put this on the talk page, but I personally think the photo of the dish including whale meat is a good contribution to this article. Puts what happens to the animals after they've been killed into perspective.BabyNuke (talk) 09:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, as the image has little to do with the subject of the article. We don't have pictures of medium-well steaks at slaughterhouse, or of salted, koshered meat at shechita. It logically follows that these animals will be eaten after they are killed, but that is why we have the article whale meat. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 20:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I concur. The article's subject is the type of hunting. The cuisine aspect is covered in several articles. We even have Faroese cuisine which correctly includes this very same image.TMCk (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dolphin drive hunting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121022044458/http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Dolphin+meat+widely+available+in+Peruvian+stores+Despite+protected...-a0102897976 to http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Dolphin+meat+widely+available+in+Peruvian+stores+Despite+protected...-a0102897976

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Dolphin drive hunting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140309231158/http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/1950s/1956/dec56.pdf to http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/1950s/1956/dec56.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.action4angel.org
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090202031033/http://www.onevoice-ear.org:80/english/campaigns/marine_mammals/memo.html to http://www.onevoice-ear.org/english/campaigns/marine_mammals/memo.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101013064639/http://www.hepca.com:80/red-sea-environment-news.aspx?month=10&year=2010 to http://www.hepca.com/red-sea-environment-news.aspx?month=10&year=2010
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070620161503/http://www.scc.ca.gov/opcbb/0509COPC03_General_Public_Comments.pdf to http://www.scc.ca.gov/opcbb/0509COPC03_General_Public_Comments.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721094259/http://tursiops.org/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=634 to http://tursiops.org/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=634
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060714091536/http://www.marineconnection.org:80/SWspring%202005.pdf to http://www.marineconnection.org/SWspring%202005.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080113135745/http://www.onevoice-ear.org:80/campagnes/cetaces/index.html to http://www.onevoice-ear.org/campagnes/cetaces/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131030011252/http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/2013/10/25/peruvian_officials_to_take_action_to.htm to http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/2013/10/25/peruvian_officials_to_take_action_to.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724233416/http://files.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/solomon_rebuttal.pdf to http://files.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/solomon_rebuttal.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090707144036/http://www.cites.org/eng/com/AC/24/E24-07-06.pdf to http://www.cites.org/eng/com/AC/24/E24-07-06.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131219192655/https://events.iwc.int/index.php/scientific/SC65a/paper/viewFile/314/287/SC-65a-Forinfo24 to https://events.iwc.int/index.php/scientific/SC65a/paper/viewFile/314/287/SC-65a-Forinfo24
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140522084917/http://www.islandsbusiness.com/news/solomon-islands/4639/350-plus-dolphins-caught-slaughtered-in-solomon-is/ to http://www.islandsbusiness.com/news/solomon-islands/4639/350-plus-dolphins-caught-slaughtered-in-solomon-is/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Dolphin drive hunting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090928034850/http://www.globalpost.com:80/dispatch/japan/090924/its-dantes-inferno-dolphins?page=0,1 to http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/japan/090924/its-dantes-inferno-dolphins?page=0,1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070620161503/http://www.scc.ca.gov/opcbb/0509COPC03_General_Public_Comments.pdf to http://www.scc.ca.gov/opcbb/0509COPC03_General_Public_Comments.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402135343/http://www.yomidr.yomiuri.co.jp/page.jsp?id=24664 to http://www.yomidr.yomiuri.co.jp/page.jsp?id=24664
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512023208/http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1291049,00.html to http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1291049,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140522090102/http://www.pacificcetaceans.org/membership.php to http://www.pacificcetaceans.org/membership.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110227051045/http://www.eia-international.org/campaigns/species/cetaceans/ to http://www.eia-international.org/campaigns/species/cetaceans/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110512171654/http://www.eia-global.org:80/species_in_peril/whales_dolphins_purposes.html to http://www.eia-global.org/species_in_peril/whales_dolphins_purposes.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Dolphin drive hunting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140810183632/http://www.hfs.fo/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/HFS/WWW_HFS_FO/UMSITING/KUNNANDITILFAR/KUNNANDITILFARFRABODANIR/KUNNTILFFRAMATVORUR/GRIND_0.PDF to http://www.hfs.fo/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/HFS/WWW_HFS_FO/UMSITING/KUNNANDITILFAR/KUNNANDITILFARFRABODANIR/KUNNTILFFRAMATVORUR/GRIND_0.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140810183632/http://www.hfs.fo/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/HFS/WWW_HFS_FO/UMSITING/KUNNANDITILFAR/KUNNANDITILFARFRABODANIR/KUNNTILFFRAMATVORUR/GRIND_0.PDF to http://www.hfs.fo/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/HFS/WWW_HFS_FO/UMSITING/KUNNANDITILFAR/KUNNANDITILFARFRABODANIR/KUNNTILFFRAMATVORUR/GRIND_0.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071216080938/http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_040921_1.html to http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_040921_1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131102065833/http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/15814517-fishermen-butchering-dolphins-for-shark-bait-sparks-global-outrage to http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/15814517-fishermen-butchering-dolphins-for-shark-bait-sparks-global-outrage
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928064137/http://www.apa-apa.net/kirio/kirio-e.htm to http://www.apa-apa.net/kirio/kirio-e.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eia-global.org/species_in_peril/whales_dolphins_purposes.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061230192804/http://www.tappedinto.com/asx/bluevoice/Japandolphins.ram to http://www.tappedinto.com/asx/bluevoice/Japandolphins.ram

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dolphin drive hunting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150316104825/http://thedolphinproject.org/data.html to http://www.thedolphinproject.org/data.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060511122316/http://lists.envirolink.org/pipermail/ar-news/Week-of-Mon-20030721/003874.html to http://lists.envirolink.org/pipermail/ar-news/Week-of-Mon-20030721/003874.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614064209/http://www.solomonstarnews.com/news/business/2528-berman-welcomes-release-of-dolphins to http://www.solomonstarnews.com/news/business/2528-berman-welcomes-release-of-dolphins

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Sustainable Futures

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kjay2749 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by JeremyRack (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)