Talk:Whale

This page forms part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cetaceans

---

The Whale page seemed to be using "whale" to mean the suborder Mysticeti, baleen whales. I've rephrased to make clear that toothed whales exist, but this runs us into a problem: the divisions in English, of whale/dolphin/porpoise, don't match current taxonomy.

The other problem is that cetacean taxonomy seems to be confused, to put it mildly. cetacea.org doesn't agree with Walker's Mammals of the World (http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/walkers_mammals_of_the_world/cetacea/cetacea.html), which goes into more detail and admits the difficulties. From cetacea.org I can't even figure out which genera they're including in which families.

If anyone here knows more about cetacean taxonomy than I do (not hard), please take a look at this. Vicki Rosenzweig 09:14 Aug 17, 2002 (PDT)

NB note to new readers, this comment refers to a long out-of-date version of this page. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

---

"Whales are drinking all our water and eating our sailors." - Maddox

---

Hunted for ambergris? I thought the stuff was found floating. -phma

Amber is a gemstone derived from pine resin, and is sometimes found floating; ambergris is a different substance, and is found inside whales. Vicki Rosenzweig

Well, according to the ambergris article it is found floating, and when it's found in the whale it stinks. -phma

According to dictonary.com (http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=ambergris): "A waxy grayish substance formed in the intestines of sperm whales and found floating at sea or washed ashore." -- Zoe

Contents

1 Whale songs? 2 External links 3 New Evolution of Ceteceans Page 4 Lists

Whale songs?

Why is there nothing about Whale songs? (not meaning to anthropomorphize the behavior either) The sounds made by whales are pretty well known and an interesting area of study. older≠wiser 16:10, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi Bkonrad, I had a look at the article on 'cattle', and the same thing: It was nothing about the cow song. The sounds made by cattle are pretty well known and an interesting area of study, too. --Arnejohs 18:52, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, if you know of any serious scientific research being done on cattle sounds, then by all means add them to that article. I'm not aware of any and think you're just trying to make a wisecrack, although I feel you may actually be trying to insinuate that research into whale sounds is somehow not worthwhile to mention. older≠wiser 19:08, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about the cheeky comment, but yes: It can be disputed how serious the scientific research on 'whale songs' is. Only the choice of the term ?song? indicates a certain interpretation. The comparison of cattle is however not a coincidence, fin whales and cattle are related. The large whales are ruminants or have been (e.g. indicated by several stomachs). But there is a big difference though: Whale sound is only obtained through hydrophones? --Arnejohs 19:40, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Ah yes, I'm sure pro-whale hunting advocates are keen to discredit any research that could be used to show that whales might be intelligent and sensitive creatures. I guess that's a matter of POV. Yes "song" does have certain implications and certainly some persons go too far in anthropomorphizing and romanticizing the "inner life" of whales. Nonethless, the sounds are commonly referred to as songs (indeed, some have used to sounds to create musical compositions--although of course we can only speculate about what the whales might make of such compositions). And yet, research into animal communications is a serious topic and worth mentioning. older≠wiser 22:00, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Hmm.. is it anthropomorphizing to talk about birds' songs?

I propose putting content about whale songs directly into the species' articles. Humpback whale should fit best, as analyses of their vocalization revealed stunning characteristics. (A small note already exists on the Baleen whale page under behaviour section. --Borys 12:27, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

I plan to do a stand-alone article that would be linked to from several places because there is a lot in common, even though the Humpbacks are the most complex. I think Arnejohs comments show that he is not appreciative of the fact that sight and smell, two extremely important mammalian senses, don't work that well underwater. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Well I made a start at whale song. Comments welcome. But I did realize you are quite right... the topic is too big to put all information about all species in one article... so there is plenty more to be added to individual species articles. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

• ====Whale band====

There is a band called Whale too. The were signed to Hut Recordings once--Onefool 00:51, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

The introduction tells about the ambiguities of the term whale, but nothing is said about which definition is adapted here. I suggest including all cetaceans. It avoids the pilot whale problem, and otherwise most content would have to be duplicated or moved to the cetacea article (which contains only the taxonomy). Also the links would have to be changed (at least the German and Polish ones lead to articles about all cetaceans). So, if nobody protests, I will add this to the intro (similar as in dolphins). --Borys 12:39, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

I think the reason we are not told what definition is adopted here is because no definition is in fact adopted! If pushed for a definition I think most scientists would say a whale is a cetacean that is not a porpoise or a dolphin (and where a dolphin is defined as a member of Delphinidae or the river dolphins). I am not certain what exactly what you are suggesting, but it would be misleading to equate "whales" with "cetaceans" in the intro. Better to simple write "these physical properties are also true of dolphins" where appropriate. I am quite comfortable with having the bulk of the information at dolphin and whale because that is where people will look for information. People with the sufficient prior knowledge to get to cetacea will also get to whale and dolphin. Everyone is happy, even if there is a small amount of duplication between the whale and dolphin articles, that what be an occasion where redundancy is useful. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Dividing cetaceans exclusively into whales and dolphins as you describe is a definition I can work with. Consequently, I will have to remove the dolphin-specific info from this article. Also, the problem remains what to do with the cetacea article: copy the content about common characteristics there, or leave it with only taxonomical info?
I guess this is a general problem with biological articles: How much content do you put into the upper catagory articles, how much into the special? Are there any suggestions what is considered a good style? --Borys 20:09, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

External links

Although it claims to be "a non-commercial website", http://www.cetacea.org/ hosts the CetaceaShop, surely having commercial interests in being represented at WikipediA. The information provided is also filled up with strong POVs, like:

"Countries like Japan and Norway, unable to justify the cull of whales except as part of tradition, have pulled the wool over the world's eyes and persuaded the International Whaling Commission to allow them to continue their slaughter as part of research. The Japanese claim that the whales they kill are scientifically studied to enable mankind to understand more about them. However, the meat from these 'scientifically studied' whales somehow finds its way onto the supermarket shelf - and is sold for as little as £100/lb.

The same can be said for dolphins. Yes, dolphins - like Flipper, like Keiko from Free Willy, like Darwin from SeaQuest DSV. These playful, funloving creatures are also slaughtered in much the same way, with their meat appearing beside the whales', priced at £70/lb. However, it is not with harpoons that dolphins are caught. They are tricked into the shallows of coves, and - when coming to greet the humans who would play with them - are instead met with a hook which is sliced into their side."

Therefore I have deleted the reference to www.cetacea.org. --- Arnejohs 04:47, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Since when is there a requirement that external links be either non- commercial or NPOV? Andy Mabbett 06:16, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There are of course no NPOV requirements on external links. But here the other links are labelled according to their POVs, while the cetacean.org site was not. Well, it could be labelled as the two others, but in this case it also showed to be a commercial site. I thought it was a common understanding to avoid promotions and advertisements in Wikipedia. Am I wrong? --- Arnejohs 06:24, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

At a minimum we must label strongly POV external links, especially if their reason for existence is campaigning (e.g. as we do with Greenpeace and the HNA). Given the quote that you made, I think it would be worth giving cetacea.org a tag of something like "Cetacea.org has good factual information on the biology and life history of whales. However it also has an anti-whaling stance." As for commercial links, this is not something that tends to be labelled as so many sites are commercial that we would drown in the noise. Singling out cetacea.org may not be a great idea, although a change in general policy would be worth at least discussing. Pcb21| Pete 10:06, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That site is not about whales alone, but about cetaceans in general. It's not topic-specific. It's like adding a site about the US to an article on Michigan. --Menchi 06:45, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that's a reasonable objection. If a site about United States had lots of good information about Michigan, then we might link there from Michigan. Having said that, those links have been there a long time since the time when our coverage is much poorer than it is now - these days our coverage is probably nearly as good as cetacea.org's except for pictures. Pcb21| Pete 10:06, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

New Evolution of Ceteceans Page

The "Evolution of Whales" section is really about evolution of cetaceans, as the common ancestor of the cetaceans was the one who entered the water. Would it be agreeable to create a new article evolution of cetaceans, and link to this new article (along with short one-sentence summaries) from whale, dolphin, porpoise and cetacea? AxelBoldt 10:37, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. :) The Singing Badger 13:36, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lists

I added a list of whales

68.169.113.246 Talk to me, 68.169.113.246 My contributions