Talk:Pelorus Jack

Contradiction

"When a drunk shot and wounded him from a passing steamer the Penguin in 1904, the passengers almost lynched the man, and a law was passed to protect Jack. Jack reappeared two weeks later, but tales tell he never helped the Penguin again and it was reputedly wrecked later."

I spent a moment looking this up on Google, and found this link that contradicts the legend that Jack never "helped" the Penguin again. Neil916 (Talk) 05:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Dolphin is an occupation

Pelorus Jack's occupation is dolphin. This is accepted by many editors, and a single editor (who, incidentally, had previously accepted this) should not overrule consensus. MaxHarmony (talk) 09:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with this Longio (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Dolphin is an aquatic Mammal. How can it be an occupation? An occupation refers to the job being performed, not the nature of existence itself. If you want to give an occupation, I would say call Pelorus Jack as a guide. Siddhesh (talk) 11:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the occupation is "pilot" or "maritime pilot" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritime_pilot 73.17.116.158 (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

See Template:Infobox animal#Parameters for what the "occupation" field is intended for. Clearly, it is not for a restatement of the species. Maritime pilot would be a possible entry, as it appears from the article that he did perform a useful service in this respect.-gadfium 18:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe that the proposal is that the occupation is termed "Dolphin" with capital D under the wiki guidelines for person honorifics Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography, and not as a restatement of the species of Perolus Jack. The description of Maritime Pilot would be inaccurate, as it implies an employer-employee relationship and does not accurately reflect the work of Perolus Jack, as there is no indication that they climbed inside the ship to steer it. In all likelihood, this was performed by a dedicated pilot onboard. I second that the occupation is termed Dolphin, obviously not as an indication of the taxonomy of this individual's species, but rather, as an indication that the work of this individual is best described with a rudimentary understanding of the behavioural patterns of dolphins, and to indicate that the interested reader should read a bit of the article to form a more involved opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.246.120.8 (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I've replied to you in the section below.-gadfium 19:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Your reply concerns the usage of "dolphin" under the conception of the species denotation; however, the proposal is about the usage of "Dolphin" under the honorifics category.87.123.207.137 (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Dolphin is not an occupation per se. However

Many members of the species are dolphins, but do not produce any meaningful work. Therefore the characterization dolphin cannot refer to their occupation for the reason that they do not possess one. However, in the case of Perolus Jack, the dolphin in question has performed meaningful work in escorting ships for a long and stable period of time, and therefore it possesses an attribute of occupation, which remains to be named. The search for "Perolus Jack" has not yielded any results in New Zealand's Ministry of Social Development. Because of the lack of official records, any choice will be non-factual and subject to unnecessary debate. I propose that the occupation is termed "Dolphin" with capital D under the wiki guidelines for person honorifics (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography) because Perolus' capacity as a dolphin is undisputed and still conveys a sense of Perolus' duties in the same way that the occupation of "King" does. 89.246.120.125 (talk) 11:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

This animal clearly has an occupation. That occupation could be termed Dolphin, as you suggest. The best alternative I can suggest is "maritime pilot" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritime_pilot. The occupation "Guide", which is used as of writing but has not been discussed is inaccurate,as that is not the term for any similar or equivalent human occupation, but rather a more general term, unlike "maritime pilot" which is what humans doing this are called. My vote is "Dolphin" or "Maritime pilot". Karlinator (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the above reasoning. Maritime pilot is the most precise description of Pelorus Jack's occupation. Though if we wanted to get really specific, he could be referred to as an "assistant maritime pilot pro bono". Rauisuchian (talk) 06:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I oppose the description of Maritime pilot on the grounds that it implies that there was an employment relationship between Perolus Jack and the ship owners, and on the grounds that he was not the person in control of the ship's maneuvering. An "assistant maritime pilot pro bono" seems to cover the financial aspect, however it falls short of the description of the actual work performed by Perolus Jack. While he was not the one manuevering the ships, he was working independently and his work reflects more closely the work performed by a control center or a lighthouse. I think that the occupation Dolphin is one that has a low enough level of information to describe the work at a superficial level, without implying non-factual information. An interested reader will read the article to learn the details and will not leave the article with wrong assumptions. 89.246.120.8 (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Animals do not have an employment relationship (although it would be possible to have an employment relationship with the owner of a domestic animal for the use of that animal). Template:Infobox animal#Parameters says this field is for "The occupation(s) animal is known for, e.g. pet, mouser, actor", and these are clearly not restating the species (or in this case, family). The "known" field, which should contain a "brief description of why the animal is notable", and currently contains "Escorting ships near French Pass", is sufficient to establish briefly what Pelorus Jack did, so I don't think any occupation is necessary. I am not however opposed to an occupation such as "maritime pilot" as this was a role that he played.

I've looked at each of the other articles in Category:Individual dolphins. Most do not have an infobox, and only one other has an infobox with an occupation. Akeakamai has an occupation of "Research subject", and there is no "known" entry for her.-gadfium 19:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I've now also checked each entry in Category:Individual killer whales. The only one with an occupation in their infobox is Shamu, who has "SeaWorld San Diego performer (captive)".-gadfium 19:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Most people in the discussion agree that there should be an occupation field. The present thread is about the usage of "Dolphin" as a honorific, which is not restating the species but rather, indicating that the work performed was a part of a special case of duties that do not have a direct human occupation as a correspondent. There is an argument to be made for the level of detail, but this is exactly what the aim is to avoid.87.123.207.137 (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

This is all very amusing, but in the end we have to come back to the reality that we are writing serious articles. Pelorus Jack was a non-captive wild animal. It did not have an occupation. Sorry to spoil the fun. Nurg (talk) 09:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I find it more than amusing, laughable actually. Those pushing for inclusion could advise where the references are for the claim PJ was employed, i.e., had an occupation. Moriori (talk) 03:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

This comment does not add to the discussion. If you would like to contribute, you can give counterarguments to the arguments that are written above your comment. 88.130.63.111 (talk) 19:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

It looks like multiple contemporary sources from the early 20th century had described Pelorus Jack as a "pilot". Some examples. "a self-constituted pilot with business-like importance" [1] "for some twenty years this wonderful marine pilot has been 'on the job'." [2] Rauisuchian (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I would say that the fundamental question is whether animals can have an occupation. If we step aside the anthropic point of view and consider it as a legitimate possibility for animals, the question that remains is, what does it mean to have a job? For me it is to do something with a function in society under a stable and prolonged period of time, with compensation. On one hand, I know some public employees who do not perform a function in society but still receive compensation. On the other hand, we still have to consider the possibility of non-compensated work, such as lawyers performing pro-bono work. Ultimately, having a job is to give the appearance of performing a function in society. And that is more or less achieved. So back to the original question: Can animals possess an occupation at all, or is the state of having a job a purely human condition? 88.130.63.111 (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you clarify what it is that you are saying "is more or less achieved"? Nurg (talk) 06:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I got curious as to what was bringing so many jokesters to this topic. They are coming via a recent Reddit thread. This is the 2nd time round - there was a similar Reddit thread 6 years ago. Nurg (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

This is crazy talk. If that dolphin does not have an occupation, so do many humans who get paid. For the actual name, I support either Dolphin or something to the effect of pilot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.102.110.228 (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Nurg The link to Te Ara I added is still active. Works without the html bit which I must somehow have added to it. Ta for fixing.

It seems that the proponents of the Dolphin occupation are the ones with the argument and the numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.102.110.228 (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

But no suitable sources saying that this dolphin had an occupation.-gadfium 09:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually there are plenty of sources cited in the article page. 82.102.110.228 (talk) 10:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Quote them. Moriori (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Pelorus Jack Chapter in The Venturesome Voyages of Captain Voss

In The Venturesome Voyages of Captain Voss (1913), John Voss dedicates the better part of chapter to his firsthand encounter with Pelorus Jack: Chapter XXI: Nelson — The Tilikum as a Mail-Boat — "Pelorus Jack" pp 174-179. Available on the Internet Archive

Of note, Captain Voss weighs in on the question of naming:

"This far-famed wonder derives his name from the beautiful Pelorus Sound which forms the northern extremity of central New Zealand. This great and picturesque inlet branches into numerous arms and creeks, embracing altogether some two hundred and fifty miles of coast line; its waters are deep and sufficiently extensive to accommodate large vessels. There are said to exist thirty landlocked anchorages in all! French Pass constitutes the western-most part of the sound which Pelorus Jack has made his home..." (emphasis mine)

There is a fair amount of other material in that chapter that can be used to flesh out this wikipedia page.

References