Talk:Whale/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

What "whale" refer to

I don't know why this page's introduction ended up the way it did?

It says "Whale (origin Old English hwæl from Proto-Germanic *hwalaz) is the common name for various marine mammals of the order Cetacea.[1] The term whale sometimes refers to all cetaceans, but more often it excludes dolphins and porpoises,[2] which belong to the suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales). This suborder includes the sperm whale, killer whale, pilot whale, and beluga whale."

This is self contradictory. The fact is that all mammals of the order cetacea are always whales, cetacea is synonymous with whales. In fact, it translates as "whales". Odontoceti translates directly as toothed whales, which shows that all Odontoceti are in fact, a form of whale. Whale is the common name for all animals in the order cetacea, regardless of whether "whale" is part of their individual vernacular name. Thus, a common dolphin is a toothed whale, and therefore it is obviously a whale from a zoological/biological perspective. It may be that some Old English speakers in the year 870 only meant the baleen whales when they uttered "hwæl", but whatever the word meant in the early medieval age just doesn't define how it is used today. It is the same basic word in all Germanic languages, and it means the same thing today in all Germanic languages, and it has only this meaning: a member of the order Cetacea.

Some fishermen call them fish - does that make them fish? The "common names" are not "unscientific" names names, they can be just as officially recognized in local languages as scientific names are; they're just not international and they are not systematic. Since they are not systematic, it does not matter whether the name contains the suffix "whale", they are still within the group of "whales", which contain baleen whales and toothed whales, all of them equally whales from a cladistic perspective, since it is a monophyletic group. --195.249.52.211 (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It can also translate as "sea monster". By that definition all cetaceans are "sea monsters". Today, when most people say "whale" they mean a baleen whale or the sperm whale, same as when they use the term "dolphin" they probably mean a member of the oceanic dolphin family Delphinidae. It's a really stupid argument. English is a stupid language. We'll leave it at that. SHFW70 (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

We'll not leave it at that! Plenty of fishermen use the term "fish" for whales, does that make them "fish"? In fact, it's not just fishermen who call them fish, lots of people do that. Just because it's a common use doesn't mean that there is no correct current definition.

If you look at the text I quoted, it does say: "it excludes dolphins and porpoises" and then it continues with some named whales - the first of which is a dolphin. That's the self contradiction. It should have said something like: "However, some toothed whales or dolphins are called whales, such as...". It would be much more correct to say that the term is used colloquially as a term for larger whales, but the term can also refer to all cetaceans, depending on context. It is certainly a fact that "Whale" technically refer to all cetaceans, which is why there are toothed whales and baleen whales. You just cannot have an animal labeled a "toothed whale" but not a "whale".

The fact that the systematic name derives from a Greek word for sea monster is besides the point - lots of systematic names have an original meaning which has nothing to do with any specific animal. This is the case with Scolopendra, for example. It also refer to an old greek sea monster, Skolopendra, but TODAY it refer to a specific genus of centipedes. In fact, the skolopendra monster was a type of Ketos/Cetus. Obviously, the original meaning of the word is completely irrelevant in this context.195.249.52.211 (talk) 08:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I forgot something. This article seems like a dictionary article rather than an encyclopedic article. There's no need for a separate "Whale" and "Cetacea" article. This article is, in my opinion, redundant, unless Wikipedia is supposed to be a dictionary and not an encyclopedia. As per your description and the intro, the article is about the word, yet it contains a description of whale biology. There could easily be a mention in the Cetacea article of the colloquial use of the term "whale" as meaning baleen whales and the sperm whale. The two articles should be merged.195.249.52.211 (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's an alternative way of doing it, the article about "bug". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bug Short and to the point. No babbling on about specific bug biology. Likewise, if this page was similar, it would not have redundant articles about whale biology - which shouldn't be in this section. Having a separate article for the common term and the systematic term is counterproductive, in my opinion, and elsewhere in Wikipedia the common use name and the scientific/systematic name has a single page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.249.52.211 (talk) 08:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear god that is a giant wall of text. Anyways.... Again, when most people say they saw a "whale" they mean a larger member of cetacean, not some dolphin or porpoise. With that said, the two articles should definitely not be merged. I read the rest but really don't care enough at this point to answer each thing you said. SHFW70 (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You are right and you are wrong.

Yes, the fact is, there is no clear dividing line in nature between toothed whales and dolphins; there are or have been plenty of creatures that might be large dolphins or small whales. This is, I think, made clear in the article. It would be perfectly legitimate to call a bottlenose a small whale or a sperm whale a huge dolphin. But just because there are things that could be seen as both a tree and/or a bush doesn't mean that trees and bushes aren't two different referents that really exist.

And also, if we take into account the whole tree of life and don't limit our vision to extant animals, it is always thus: there are shews and there are moles, but there must always have been shrew-moles and mole-shrews. There are dogs and there are bears, but there had to have been beardogs. Even in cases where there is no proof or fossil of transitional individuals, they must have existed because never in evolution does a civet give birth to a felid from one day to the next. Everything smoothly washes from one branch to another on the tree of life and the clear distinctions we see now or which we have no choice but to use taxonomy to lump each specimen into, these are only approximately true.

But listen: there is proof that the English language's distinction between whales and dolphins is not just about size, as this article (somewhat falsely) implies. Shape is equally or even more important! Look at this huge sculptural meteorological tower in China, http://english.cri.cn/2906/2008/07/11/53s379806.htm, the Blue Sea Pearl Tower in Jiayuguan. English-speaking people call it a "giant dolphin", even though it's much bigger than even the biggest whale. So it must be the shape, not the size, that makes the difference for English speakers, or a dolphin of this size would be a whale.

Further proof: take two models of exactly the same size and present them to English speakers. They still make the distinction between dolphins and whales quickly without a second's thought.

So the difference between a dolphin and a toothed whale is not just the size; it's also the shape. To define the shape difference would take a mathematical model of some sort, and there will be plenty of fuzzy grey area between.

But, anyway, about your point, if you want, go ahead, start a merge discussion for this article and Cetacea; I'll at least follow along. Whether we should or shouldn't merge them depends on reader benefit. But it not just English that draws artificial lines of convenience that upon close inspection turn out to be arbitrary. Taxonomy does, too.. Chrisrus (talk) 04:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC) See also Cladistics

What? No you can't call a sperm whale a "large dolphin". That's ridiculous. And your sculpture comparison is flawed. Who cares how big they made it?? People make tiny whale toys? Oh, but it's much smaller than any actual whale. Am I making the identification based on shape alone?? Doesn't make any damn sense. I'd vehemently oppose any merging of articles. When I go whale watching and I say I saw a whale I'm implying I saw a larger member of the order cetacea, not some goddamn dolphin or porpoise. They're not the same thing. SHFW70 (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Please note that, while I did encourage him to open a merge request, I didn't say that it should or would succeed. I just thought, if that's what he wants to do, fine, it'll at least be interesting. I think it would fail because, while there are no two taxa that correspond exactly to the referents of the English words "dolphin" and "whale", that fact doesn't mean they don't deserve their own articles. They are very popular articles that both are upfront about them being English words don't line up perfectly with the taxa. But they don't have to. Look at the article porcupine, for example. There's no taxon for that concept, either. I have a whole list on my user page if you want more examples.

And also, why are dolphins are small toothed whales, but large toothed whales not big dolphins? It's the same thing said twice from two different angles. If dolphins are small toothed whales, then toothed whales are big dolphins. Chrisrus (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

No. That's really goddamn stupid. I think you're the first person to say that. You have incredibly backwards logic. Jesus Christ that is so f**king stupid. Might as well call everything a goddamn dolphin while you're at it. My cat is a dolphin. My computer's a dolphin. The squirrel in my backyard is a dolphin. That hummingbird behind me is a dolphin. That mockingbird is a dolphin. I'm sure there's a porpoise somewhere someone is calling a dolphin. Go home. SHFW70 (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Not everything! Not cats, computers, birds, or squirrels. What's the matter with you? I clearly said large toothed whales are may be legitimately seen big dolphins and vice versa; scroll up and read, if you can. How does that about the cats and such follow from what I said? And I'm by no means the first to say for example that for example killer whales are just large dolphins or that dolphins are small toothed whales, and I can prove that with citations. Chrisrus (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. I was being vague. You said the sperm whale could be called a "large dolphin". I'm pretty sure no one has ever said that but you. That's really stupid. And my cat is right beside me. I'm yelling and pointing at him calling him a dolphin. He seems indifferent. SHFW70 (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You are right that English language balks at calling the sperm whale a "large dolphin" - that's going too far. Even if you eliminate the size factor, the English speaker's mind categorizes the sperm whale as separate from dolphins because of the nature of the English language. However, you will agree that, among the toothed whales are forms intermediate between "dolphin" and "whale" where the English mind could see it either way, and even where we have no proof, reason dictates that there must have been many more such forms when one considers all the extinct ones as well, including the sperm whale's direct line of ancestors; a line which, if you followed it back far enough, would almost certainly eventually lead to a creature which the English mind would sooner call a dolphin than a whale, after first passing through a phase in which it could legitimately go either way. Chrisrus (talk) 13:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Bible section

I'm moving this section here for now. At the very least, it belongs in the "literature" section, not its own Bible section. But it would make more sense to just leave most of it out. Krychek (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

(Whales in the Bible)
[[File:Im Februar 1598 an der holländischen Küste gestrandeter Walfisch.jpg|thumb|The engraving by William van der Gouwen shows a 20 m (65.6 ft) long whale, stranded on the Dutch coast between [[Scheveningen]] and [[Katwijk]] on 3 February 1598.]]
The Bible, 1611 Authorized Version, expressly mentions whales four times:

• Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
• Job 7:12 Am I a sea, or a whale, that thou settest a watch over me?
• Ezekiel 32:2 Son of man, take up a lamentation for Pharaoh king of Egypt, and say unto him, Thou art like a young lion of the nations, and thou art as a whale in the seas: and thou camest forth with thy rivers, and troubledst the waters with thy feet, and fouledst their rivers.
• Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

The translators in that latter verse above thereby identified the "great fish" of the book of Jonah as a whale. It is apparent that Jeremiah recognized that some great fish are mammals. The English word "monster", (used in the ordinary sense of a "huge animal",) is used in the Bible in Jeremiah's Lamentations to refer to whales:

• Lamentations 4:3 Even the sea monsters draw out the breast, they give suck to their young ones: the daughter of my people is become cruel, like the ostriches in the wilderness.

---

Yes, I was wondering about doing the same. How say we rewrite it something like this:

The Bible mentions whales in Genesis 1:21, Job 7:12, and Ezekiel 32:2. In the Gospel of Matthew 12:40, the "great fish" of the book of Jonah is identified as a whale.

We could tie in the sourceable fact that Moby Dick makes use of the Jonah whale. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Saying the great fish of Jonah is "identified" as a whale without attributing it to the translators would result in editors {fact} tagging it. The wording of that longstanding section in the article was fine AFAICT, so we should leave well enough alone. Moby Dick? Google shows that Melville mentions Jonah in several chapters.
Cheers. —Telpardec 21:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Err, we do not have to cite chunks of the bible for this, and the section appeared to assume all kinds of things that it should not have assumed. It is not at all fine to reinstate the text while a discussion is open. Could we please remove the text at once, per User:Krychek and then per my suggestion above decide what we should properly say. Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It is proper to restore the long-standing status quo when there is a content dispute. (If it were OK to blank a disputed section for discussion, would it not also be OK to utterly blank a disputed article?) I think the present wording is fine. The new wording suggested by User:Chiswick Chap, without the attribution noted above, does not seem better to me. What does "all kinds of things" refer to? Is there an objection to the words "breast" and "suck" in the Lam.4:3 cite? I noticed the suggested new wording above did not include Jeremiah's mention of monster milk faucets.
Cheers. —Telpardec  TALK  03:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not insisting on a specific wording, just objecting to the mass quoting and WP:UNDUE overemphasis. I suggest we have a single sentence based on some modification of the above. Let's begin with "The Bible mentions whales in Genesis 1:21, Job 7:12, and Ezekiel 32:2." This is not contested and is self-citing. The kind of logic-chopping and biblical exegesis exemplified above is exactly what is not relevant to this non-philosophical article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: since we agree that the talk of 'identifying' by translators is someone's (old) WP:OR, I've removed the offending section. Have also reorganized the containing sections to be more typical of Wikipedia, but the emphasis on the bible still stands out as an issue to be resolved. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Overemphasis was precisely my concern. I'm fine with reinstating the section under Myth/Folklore, but I do still feel that calling out the specific verses is unwarranted. I would prefer more of a general "This is how the Bible uses whales as a literary device, and this is what that usage tells us about Christianity." If no such conclusions can be drawn, then the whole subject of "Whales in the Bible" is trivial and not worthy of mention in WP in the first place. Krychek (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I broadly agree with that; we can do little more than say that whales are mentioned, just as we'd do with mentions in any work of literature. There is no call for a separate section, or drawing any conclusions: indeed that would certainly be undue, and WP:OR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, obviously such conclusions would have to be sourced. I'm just saying if we were to elaborate beyond where I've left it, that would be a possible direction -- similar to the simple statement of a species' importance in any other mythology/religion, and no more than a line or two. Krychek (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy with that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

So, is that it? what started as a few notable sourced mentions of Whales in the Bible has been reduced down to a lotta extra white space, an unsourced addition, and the monster penis whale-fish picture from the See also section, which now has more white space too. Let's try again. I changed the commentary for Lam.4:3 to something neutral and sourced to a page with multiple quote versions and multiple commentaries. I removed the bullets. The underlining was not for emphasis, but to enable visual readers to spot the keywords at a glance, if they are skip-reading or blurry-eyed. Section headings have been adjusted without "Whales" since, "headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article." The old section name was anchored so incoming links to the old section name do not get lost. FYI: The "Whales in the Bible" section was created in March 2004 with the Great Whale merge to this article and partly to the Right whale article. A large "Hermann Melville" section was merged also. There has been material added and removed over the years. Most of the commentary faded away, indeed, the Melville material here was reduced down to only a Moby Dick link, which was expanded to a full sentence awhile back, thanks to User:Chiswick Chap.
Cheers. —Telpardec  TALK  11:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I am really surprised and disappointed to find edit-warring from a veteran editor in the face of a discussion which is clearly headed the other way. It really doesn't matter what was done long ago, if an entry is not up to the current standard for the reasons given above, it is not appropriate. There is no call for a 'bible' section here, nor for mention of a specific version of the bible translated into English in a zoology article. There is no reason to freeze a whole set of poorly-worded headings for one link anchor: links can be updated, and I'll be happy to adjust them if necessary. The section as it stands is now entirely unsatisfactory and without mandate, and as I said, ten-year-old history is not a mandate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I have little to add beyond what Chiswick Chap has said. I agree wholeheartedly with every part of his last comment. I'm the first to admit that my most recent edit may not have been pretty (I'm not a graphic designer), and I also recognize that it was unsourced -- in fact, I thank you for reminding me. However, the correct solution to that would be to help by 1) adding a citation, and/or 2) arranging the trimmed-back elements in a more aesthetically pleasing way. What is not helpful is adding back in Bible information when this whole discussion began as an attempt to correct an overemphasis on biblical material. Krychek (talk) 20:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I have inserted a brief summary, leaving the link anchor in place. Per the discussion above including Krychek, there is no call for extended biblical quotes (which may well not actually have referred to whales but large fish or other marine or even terrestrial animals), especially contrary to or wholly without discussion. There is no call, either, for a dedicated subsection within the overall coverage of literature on whales. The focus must be on the whale not an attempt at WP:POV-pushing biblical messages. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2014

I just want added two things in the evolution section and another thing in the anatomy section; not asking to take anything away. the first thing I like added for the evolution section is that there's a strong possibility that the extinct semi-aquatic deer-like ungulate didn't even exist or the scientists tempered with the evidence (they tempered with the Apatosaurus skeleton and called a brontosaurus so they are likely to mess with anything or lie) and the second thing is: all life could have started with each creature separate between 6,000 and 12,000 years ago. now the thing that I want to add for the anatomy section is that the discrete rudimentary appendages could most likely be an Anker point that would be surrounded by 9 tiny muscles would be there to aid the whale in giving birth. I want to these two things added because the info you gave about the evolution section and the discrete rudimentary appendages are not the only solution and everyone has a right to know the whole truth. -Truth8 (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- ferret (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Mythology, etc

I don't think there is any call to remove the bulk of the mythology, folklore and tribal storytelling about whales, especially when we want to have international coverage and the material is properly cited. Happy to discuss details, but in broad terms the article correctly has material of this kind. I have therefore reverted recent changes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You're right but I think that the mythology section is too wordy and detailed, and most of it ought to be moved to the animal worship article. Like other articles, a short summary should be there instead for this article to be more balanced, this isn't a religious article, after all. Smk65536 (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure we can work something out here. Clearly there must be no bias about religion for or against; on the other hand, if people did worship whales, that is a notable fact which we should neutrally record. I don't agree the mythology section is too long; I'll copyedit it now in case it's too wordy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Spanish - missing from languages on the left

The link for "Español" does not appear in the "languages" box on the left for this article. This could be because there really is no equivalent for the English "whale" in Spanish, but the same is true for "Français" and "Italiano," yet both of these links are provided. The language links take you to an article titled "Baleine" in French and "Balena" in Italian, which is the closest equivalent. In all three languages, all whales are commonly known as baleines, balenas or ballenas.

Clicking on "Francais" links to: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baleine

Where it is explained that "C'est un terme générique qui s'applique aux espèces appartenant au sous-ordre des mysticètes ainsi que, improprement, à certaines espèces appartenant aux odontocètes." Roughly translating as: it is a common term that is applied not just to Baleen whales but also to Odontoceti (toothed whales). A link is provided for the reader to the article on toothed whales.

Clicking on "Italiano" links to: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balena

There it says:

In a broad sense "whale/balena" is meant as any whale of gigantic size (sperm whales, fin whales, humpback whales, true whales). The term is used in this sense in such expressions as "whaling", "whale song", "protection of whales" etc. (translation by Google). While the Italian article does not include a link to toothed whales as the French article does, it does provide a link to the Italian article on Cetaceans.

The article in "Español" has a similar explanation.

There is an equivalent link in "Español" (Spanish), which has a similar explanation about the common use of the term ballena: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balaenidae

Like the French article, this one also provides a link to the toothed whale article.

The same is true in Portuguese (Baleia) and possibly other languages, especially the Romance languages. Polish also seems to use a related word, "Waleine," to mean whales in general, but there it links to the article on Cetacea and not to Balaenidae.

Interestingly, neither the Italian, French, nor Portuguese articles on Balaenidae have a link to the Spanish article on the same topic. There may be additional links needed for articles in other languages, but these are the ones that are most familiar to me.

Conclusion/Proposal: The Spanish article should be treated the same as the French & Italian ones and thus "Español" should be one of the available languages from the English article on Whales. It should also have links going to it from the Italian and French articles on Balaeindae. Ileanadu (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I haven't fully grokked your note, but it seems like some confusion might be caused by the fact that this wiki has 2 articles for whales; this one and Cetacea. e.g. Cetacea has a link for Español. We really should merge the two; this might be yet another (albeit small) reason. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

No; the order Cetacea doesn't just refer to whales, but to all fully marine mammals. Also, I don't fully comprehend what you mean by saying that the Spanish article should be treated as the French and Italian articles; does it mean the Spanish link will redirect to the French article for whales? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Add list of crytid whales to species section?

I do realize that this is not a complete list (but I don't plan on making a complete one), but before I continue expanding this, I would like to know if I should continue (because I don't want it to be deleted when I'm finished with it...) Please give me your input onto my talk page by 8/1/15. Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 22:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Cryptid whales

Species	Description	Image
Alula whale	The Alula Whale, also known as the Alula Killer, is a cryptid that resembles a brown orca whale with a well-rounded forehead and white, star-like scars on the body. The dorsal fin, about 0.6 metres (2.0 ft) high, is prominent and often protrudes well above the surface of the water. It is roughly 7.3 metres (24 ft) long, and weighs around 1.8 metric tons (2.0 short tons). This species was discussed and illustrated for the first time, but not formally named, by W. F. J. Mörzer Bruyns in Field Guide of Whales and Dolphins. It has been reported along the Eastern Gulf of Aden to Socotra, and orcas have been seen in the area that are of a sepia brown color, however, they could be a local color variant or a mutation.	A white killer whale, similar in color to the Alula whale
Giglioli's whale (Amphiptera pacifica)	Giglioli’s Whale is a cryptid observed by Enrico Hillyer Giglioli. It was described as having two dorsal fins, a feature which no known whales have. On September 4, 1867 on board a ship called the Magenta about 1200 miles off the coast of Chile, the zoologist spotted a species of whale which he could not recognize. It was very close to the ship (too close to shoot with a cannon.) and was observed for a quarter of an hour, allowing Giglioli to make very detailed observations. The whale looked overall similar to a rorqual, 60 feet (18 m) long with an elongated body, but the most notable difference was the presence of two large dorsal fins about 6.5 feet (2 m) apart. No known whales have twin dorsal fins; the rorqual only has a single fin and some other whales have none. Other unusual features include the presence of two long sickle-shaped flippers and a lack of throat pleats. Another report of a two finned whale of roughly the same size was recorded from the ship Lily off the coast of Scotland the following year. In 1983 between Corsica and the French mainland, French zoologist Jacques Maigret sighted a similar looking creature. Although it has not been proven to exist, it was given a "classification" by Giglioli. However, scientists would classify the whale under Balaenopteridae. The whale may have been a genetic mutation. Given the species' alleged size (60 feet) and attributes, it is extremely doubtful such a species would not have been taken (and reported) by modern commercial whalers, bringing into doubt its very existence.	Giglioli's whale
High-Finned sperm whale (Physeter tursio)	The High-finned sperm whale is a supposed variant or relative of the sperm whale that is said to live in the seas around the Shetland Islands in Europe, the Antarctic Ocean, and Nova Scotia. The major difference between this creature and other sperm whales is the presence of a tall dorsal fin on its back, which the sperm whale lacks. Two such stranded whales were supposedly observed by Sir Robert Sibbald. He described their dorsal fins as being similar to a "mizzen mast". Although species cannot be given scientific names until a type specimen is discovered, Physeter tursio has been suggested as the High-Finned Sperm Whale's scientific name by an early observer. A possible sighting was off the Annapolis Basin, Nova Scotia, Canada on either August or September 27, 1946. It was apparently trapped there for 2 days. Its length was estimated to be between 3 to 30 metres (9.8 to 98.4 ft).	Cetacean needed
Trunko	Trunko is the nickname for an animal reportedly sighted in Margate, South Africa, on October 25, 1924, according to an article entitled "Fish Like A Polar Bear" published in the December 27, 1924, edition of London's Daily Mail. The animal was first seen off the coast fighting two orcas for three hours. It used its tail to attack the whales and reportedly lifted itself out of the water by about 20 feet. The creature washed up on Margate Beach but despite being there for 10 days, no scientist ever investigated the carcass while it was beached, so no reliable description has been published, and until September 2010 it was assumed that no photographs of it had ever been published. Some people who have never been identified were reported to have described the animal as possessing snowy-white fur, an elephantine trunk, a lobster-like tail, and a carcass devoid of blood. While it was beached, the animal was measured by beach-goers and turned out to be 14 metres (46 ft) in length, 3 metres (9.8 ft) wide, and 1.5 metres (4.9 ft) high, with the trunk's length being 1.5 metres (4.9 ft), the trunk's diameter 36 centimetres (14 in), the tail 3 metres (9.8 ft), and the fur being 20 centimetres (7.9 in) long. The trunk was said to be attached directly to the animal's torso, as no head was visible on the carcass. For this feature, the animal was dubbed "Trunko" by British cryptozoologist Karl Shuker in his 1996 book The Unexplained. In the March 27, 1925, edition of the Charleroi Mail, in Charleroi, Pennsylvania, an article entitled "Whales Slain By Hairy Monster" reported that whales there were killed by a strange creature which was washed up on a beach exhausted and fell unconscious, but made its way back into the ocean and swam away after 10 days, never to be seen again.	Cetacean needed

References

I don't think these belong in the main article, since they are not yet recognised species. Once they are properly published in the scientific literature as confirmed species, then of course they can be added. Having said that, I see no reason not to make a brief mention that a number of cryptid whales are purported to exist, and link that to a cryptid whale page where the above information would be appropriate. It's not, in my opinion, that such information does not belong on Wikipedia, just that I don't think it belongs on this particular page. (Although I'd suggest more references, if possible). Anaxial (talk) 06:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

You're saying I should complete this list and put it up on a new article, right? Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 17:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that it's a valid topic for a new article, yes. I don't know what other interested parties might think, although there's no problem with being bold. Anaxial (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

A cetacean covered with diatoms, a genetic deformity, variability in dorsal fin shape, and hearsay shouldn't constitute the creation of a new article. GammaCepheus001 (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I'll just make it into a new section under "Interactions with humans". Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 11:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• This entire section should be removed from the article and made into a separate article. It has no place in a reliable natural science article. FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. LittleJerry (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Scope of article

I commend Dunkleosteus77 for the hardwork done on such a high-profile article. However, I have some problems with the topic. The definition of "whale" in this article seems rather arbitrary. Why are beluga whales and narwhals covered but not pilot whales and killer whales? Does whale mean any cetacean that is not a dolphin or porpoise? Then that would make whales a paraphylyic group. I personally think this information would be better served at Cetacea. LittleJerry (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, the closest relative of these "whales" would be the dolphins and porpoises, not hippos. LittleJerry (talk) 03:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Pilot whales and killer whales are blackfish, meaning they are dolphins that are often confused as whales. I did have trouble identifying which species are whales or dolphins, but I found a list of which species are whales and which are dolphins on WikiProject Cetaceans and I wanted to stay consistent with that (as well with the dolphin article). The comment about the hippo is noted. Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 03:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The misplacement of info between whale and cetacea was already debated about when this article was nominated for deletion. Whales have always been a paraphylyic group, and yes, they are any cetacean that are not dolphins or porpoises; dolphins are also a paraphylyic group. Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 04:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

Please make a link [marine mammals] in first sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.199.149 (talk) 13:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Polishing refs

I would like to let people know I have been polishing the references given, owing to how problematic they were in the FAC. This will take me a bit to complete because I am busy/occupied with other articles. Cheers, Burklemore1 (talk) 05:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Changes from American English to British English spellings

In the history of this article, there is at least one mass change from American English to British English terminology. The template asking to use British English was also silently added to the talk page but without any discussion.

However, the first edit that establishes a national variety of English has words such as "organizations", "characterized", "recognize", "minimizes". This is clear evidence that the article should be written in American English.

I will first revert the mass change and then try to ensure everything follows American conventions, as well as change the template accordingly.

LjL (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hold up. These changes were made (by me) because User John told me that this article has always been written in British English; I'll copy/paste it right here

In a recent edit, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. This relates to this edit; could you also not mark edits like this as minor please? --John (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello John. Earlier you commented on how I changed the British spelling of words to American English on the Whales article. I wrote that section that I edited and I accidentally used British English (along with some other errors) when I added it, so I went back and changed it. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, no harm done. The article has been in British English for over ten years, so policy is that we leave it like that. --John (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if it's true and there were some inconsistencies, so check it out a little more in depth, and get back to this.

Well, sorry you've been caught between this, but according to my research (for which I've shown diffs above) the article was originally in American English, quite unmistakably I'd say. Not sure if it had been in British English for "over ten years", but it had been in American English about 14 years ago, so that takes priority according to the very policy cited... LjL (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll inform John on this...

• These spellings aren't particularly indicative of American English though, see Oxford spelling. --John (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Then the article would have to stick to Oxford Spelling, and we have a template for that, but the edit I objected to had changed a lot of "-ize" spellings into "-ise" and the template being used was the generic British English one. I have to take a step back about the diff I provided, however, since I just realized that it appears to be a diff from between 2001 and 2010... I had simply stepped through the diffs in order, but this one appears to be "peculiar", given its edit summary involving "import old edits". Something I don't understand must have happened with the servers at that point... LjL (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

So instead of just British English, use British English with Oxford spelling?

Sounds good. The article's history turns out to be a bit too involved for me to make enough sense of it, but I did spot things like "labelled" (with two Ls) in old-enough revisions. I think I should be able to use the same tool I used to convert to American to convert to English+Oxford, if desired. LjL (talk) 01:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. LjL (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• That's totally fine. It is actually pretty unclear which spelling convention should be followed here; when I discussed this in April I was looking at a long-standing section called Behaviour, but on reviewing this last night I noticed for the first time the spelling "meter" (for the unit of length) coexisting with it. But it doesn't really matter, as whales swim freely from regions using one spelling convention to those using another. So long as the article is internally consistent and nobody comes in changing it willy-nilly, I think it is fine. Oxford spelling is a decent compromise. --John (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Paraphyly

Some members of delphinoidea, most notably orcas and narwhals but probably also some others, are commonly considered whales. So we shouldn't claim "whale" is paraphyletic, since the piece that's been taken out of it ("dolphins and porpoises") isn't monophyletic (I'm not sure if it's even paraphyletic). I suggest that the definition of whale is more or less "cetaceans, except for some smaller members of delphinoidea, which are considered dolphins and porpoises". David Bofinger (talk) 11:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

What an awful term! LjL (talk) 12:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I was also really confused when I started improving this article, and that definition doesn't fit either because belugas and narwhals are considered whales and are part of the clade Delphinoidea. I've even asked experts and they have no idea what the difference is. Really it's just common sense (like you wouldn't call a sperm whale a dolphin nor a bottlenose dolphin a whale), but that doesn't fit either since a lot of people think orcas are whales, but "they're considered dolphins" (I asked an expert if they were whales and that was that person's response). I hate to say it, but there is no clear definition/distinction of whale or dolphin. Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 22:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The lead section talks about whale being a "common name". Unless I'm very mistaken, the "common" understanding when most people use that term is that they're talking about a large marine mammal. Shouldn't that be directly reflected in the first or second sentence? --LjL (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Well yes, but you wouldn't call a beluga a dolphin nor a narwhal a dolphin (rarely do people think otherwise and if so narwhals are usually confused with porpoises). Belugas aren't that big, I'm pretty sure they're around the same size as a bottlenose dolphin. I almost went with that definition until I remembered belugas aren't that big. Same goes for the lesser known beaked whales. Again, there really is no clear distinction between a whale and a dolphin. Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 22:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Wait a minute, I never put the words "common name" anywhere, since it's completely inaccurate (there are more cetaceans thought of as dolphins than whales). I'll remove that. Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 22:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Wait, what was wrong with "common name"? It didn't say that it was common(est) for cetaceans, just that it was the common name for certain animals. In fact, the common name link was useful to explain that it referred to a term used in "everyday life" as opposed to a biology term, which is probably worth pointing out for this mess of a term. LjL (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Reproduction

How do whales reproduce? Strangely enough this is missing from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.126.148 (talk) 03:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I'll try to get to that later. Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 14:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Dolphins are not whales

Though not a taxon, whales are different from dolphins. Cetacea is not synonymous with Whale. I, personally, have never had someone look at Flipper and call him a whale. Each blackfish has their own reason for having the word "whale" in their name. For example, the killer whale was named "whale killer" by Spanish sailors but switched to "killer whale". They are not whales. Blackfish are, in part, mentioned in the Odontoceti section (they are not whales and it is evidently clear already) so it doesn't need to be brought up twice.

Toothed whales is just a nickname; if dolphins are whales then there shouldn't even be different articles. Most people would look at a bottlenose dolphin and call it a dolphin, and look at a beluga and call it a whale. It makes sense, it isn't size, it isn't taxonomy (well it is to some extent), it's just makes sense.

If you really want to include that last paragraph, consider re-writing it because it doesn't read encyclopedic. Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 05:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It is correct to state that "whale may or may not include dolphins and porpoises", because some definitions of "whale" do just that. That is how it is with animal names - they are not taxonomically defined but defined by usage- and some people use whale to mean cetacean.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I would quote a major UK reference work in support of this: Whale: Any cetacean of the groups Mysticeti or Odontoceti (which are distinguished by the names dolphin, grampus, porpoise etc.) - Oxford English Dictionary. Wikipedia itself includes dolphins and porpoises in the article on Toothed whales. I'm just making the point that SOMETIMES references to whales will include dolphins and porpoises.Darorcilmir (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is another example from Merriam-Webster: Whale: Cetacean, especially one (as a sperm whale or killer whale) of larger size.Darorcilmir (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Odd

In the fourth line from the top, the odd word "parvorders" appears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.215.180 (talk) 10:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Order > Suborder > Infraorder > Parvorder. Mysticeti (baleen whales) and Odontoceti (toothed whales) are parvorders of the infraorder Cetacea of the suborder Whippomorpha of the order Artiodactyla.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

You are quite right. In an inexact subject like biology, any number of sub-groups are possible. It would be easier to just talk about groups, sub-groups, sub-sub-groups, and so on, rather than try and find special names for each sub-group.

toothed and baleen whales are special names? Toothed and baleen whales are two very different things anyways (and they're both parvorders) and that's what the Whale article talks about. Order Artiodactyla is a separate article, Suborder Whippomorpha is a different article, and Infraorder Cetacea is a different article, so we can't exactly stick to only order, suborders, and sub-sub orders here.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Taxoboxes for even-toed ungulates and whales

Feel free to participate in a discussion I started at Talk:Even-toed ungulate#Taxoboxes for even-toed ungulates and whales. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

"Cryptid Whales"

I've just removed a section here referring to supposed "cryptid whales". The term cryptid references to a pseudoscientific concept promoted in cryptozoology, which is essentially Pokémon with sham biology and a disregard for introductory folkloristics. Tellingly, it used cryptozoological references. This was totally WP:UNDUE. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

In water, a whale can see around 10.7 metres (35 ft) ahead of itself?

I am not convinced by this statement. I would have thought that visibility would have varies greatly depending on environmental factors and on the species of whale; certainly, I would not expect you to be able to give a figure to the level of precision offered in the statement. I can't find anything in either of the sources that backs up the statement - one of them (Reidenberg) does mention some aquatic adaptations of whales' eyes, but it makes no attempt to quantify their visual range.

I would suggest cutting this sentence completely, or revising it if better sources can be found.Girth Summit (talk) 09:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this claim is implausible. It suggests that all species of whale have very similar visual acuity which is not affected much by water conditions. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Definitions

Clearly an emotive subject! The term "whale" often includes dolphins and porpoises in the literature. Indeed Wiki itself includes them in Odontoceti (toothed whales). The Oxford English Dictionary defines "whale" to include dolphins/porpoises. Some dolphins are called whales. This needs to be reflected in the article. I'm not criticising the article itself, which I think is excellent. Darorcilmir (talk)

I think the article strikes a good balance describing the definition prominently in the lead but coming down on the most common interpretation which excludes dolphins and porpoises. Odontoceti, even toothed whale, is not a term in common usage so describes the scientific parvorder including dolphins and porpoises much as Cetacea does. The article specifically covers that some dolphins are called whales in the first section. Please do make changes or suggest some here if you still feel it is not covered sufficiently. |→ Spaully ^τ  21:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

"Ballena asesina"

The article states that a species is called in Spanish "ballena asesina", which translates as "whale killer" or "whale assasin", but is sometimes translated as "killer whale". Killer Whales are awesome!

Well, "ballena asesina" only means "killer whale". "Whale killer" would be "asesina de ballenas".

Cheers.

--200.76.202.66 (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Conclusion

In Conclusion, there are many types of whales and their attributes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.54.225 (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)