Talk:History of whaling

message: I rewrote the majority of the History of Whaling prior to the modern era. In time, I hope to add to it. -Jonas Poole —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonas Poole (talk • contribs).
What is your source for the claim that whaling was integral to the Haida? The Nuu-chah-nulth ('Nootka' is a misnomer, and has fallen out of general use, though it ought to remain in the article as it is an historic term that often occurs in references from the period) have an extensive and well-documented whaling tradition, the Haida do not. There is some archaeological evidence indicating whale use by the Haida (ie. whale bone occasionally occurring in middens), likely attributed to the opportunistic (and very occasional) harvest of drift whales. The Haida themselves do not claim a whaling tradition. On account of this, I've deleted the portion of the article which states that they do, but left intact the reference to their use of whales as 'totems', which is accurate. I trust I've kept the overall gist of the segment intact.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.51.133.246 (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: The Pacific Arctic fishery is now part of the Yankee whale fishery, that's why it was deleted. Also, the claim the Arctic fleet "became the largest in the world in the 1870s" isn't entirely accurate, as Yankee whaling was then in decline. If it was so, it was only by default. Also, the rorqual fishery was deleted because it was inaccurate.-Jonas Poole —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.68.248.69 (talk • contribs).
The Pacific Arctic Fishery should be removed because, (1) American whalers did not shift from the Davis Strait and Greenland whaling grounds to the Bering Strait region, (2) the American Arctic fleet did not become the largest in the world in the 1870s as it was in decline and the Arctic fleet had been larger than other fleets several decades prior to that time, and (3) the Bering Strait region is included in the Yankee whale fishery, and is no longer needed as a separate section.
The Rorqual fishery should be deleted because, (1) rorquals were hunted by the Japanese prior to the late 19th century, and (2) Foyn's Spes et Fides first sailed in 1864, not 1865. I believe Foyn didn't even kill any whales that season. Jonas Poole 02:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revisions

message: "In Terranova they hunted bowheads and right whales" It is unclear in this statement what whales are being spoken of, because bowhead are known as the Greenland right whale. I've changed it to "In Terranova they hunted Greenland right whales (bowhead) and North Atlantic right whales"Myrddin y dewydd 22:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Basque Fishery

message: This section is now included in the Yankee Whale Fishery, so whoever keeps reverting back to that section needs to stop, as that section has now become redundant. Not only that, but it made false statements about the fishery. Let me say this one more time, the Pacific Arctic fleet did not become the largest fleet in the world in the 1870s, and whalers DID NOT shift from the Davis Strait and Greenland fisheries to the Bering Strait region, that is simply UNTRUE. Jonas Poole 00:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pacific Arctic Fishery

message: I deleted it because I no longer wanted it there. I wrote it, so I can delete it if I want. Its not like anyone else contributed to that section anyway. Jonas Poole 19:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you edit Wikipedia you agree to license your contributions under the GFDL, as it states on every "Editing ___" page. Mgiganteus1 21:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rorqual Fishery

message: I'm adding a section on modern whaling to this article, if anyone would like to add photos depicting modern whaling feel free to do so. I'm still pretty new at this, so I could use some help. Any good quality photos will do. Thanks.Jonas Poole 03:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern Whaling

message: Why is this article organized by country?  I've watched this article (to protect it from vandalism and incorrect good faith edits that spill over from whaling), but I honestly haven't even read it, because I really don't care about country by country narratives of history.  I think it would make sense to have this article organized chronologically, with examples from various countries supporting various sections when appropriate.  This is just a suggestion; all other editors should feel free to ignore it if you disagree, as I'm not going to be re-organizing the article to suit my tastes.  I just ask that you all step back from this page a bit and think about the best way to organize it.  Enuja  (talk) 03:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chronological (by technology) then by catching region could be useful - maybe with indications of annual and total catch maybe by species where known ? - Rod57 (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization

message: :Image:Jonahsperm.png 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) 22:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Jonahsperm.png

message: I honestly don't know what the editor who added that "the God Speed sailed to Spitsbergen in 1608 to hunt walrus" is talking about. Henry Hudson sailed there in 1607 (and accomplished nothing), and Jonas Poole sailed there in 1610 to explore the area and hunt walrus. Purchas (1625) mentioned no such voyage. Jonas Poole (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sigh

message: I have been reading Tønnessen J.N., and Johnsen A.O. (1982) and wondered if it would be useful to collect some further details. Please let me know if people think it would be useful to expand this section and I can clean up these notes  and build them into the section that already exists. My only concern is that it relies a lot on the one reference (but a good one :-) ) except for the Government referencesPolarbearzombie (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see why not. Although you should cut it down a little and put it into three or four paragraphs. Jonas Poole (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  cheers Jonas Poole. I'll have a go as you suggestPolarbearzombie (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercial whaling around and from the Faroe Islands 

message: The 'Rorqual whaling' section seems more like a history of Thomas Roys efforts and out of place with the other geographically named sections ? It's so long - Could we push most of it into its own suitably named article ? - Rod57 (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternatively we could just trim the section down to its essential content. At the moment it's reading more like a narrative essay than an article in an encyclopedia. De728631 (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rorqual whaling section confusing 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on History of whaling. 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://archive.is/20130107145939/http://www.savn.fo/00108/00119/ to http://www.savn.fo/00108/00119/
*Added  tag to http://mmr.sansir.net/get.file?ID=7707
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070610021813/http://www.du.edu/~ttyler/ploughboy/starbuck.htm to http://www.du.edu/~ttyler/ploughboy/starbuck.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080209033326/http://nantucket.plumtv.com/stories/how_nantucket_helped_light_world to http://nantucket.plumtv.com/stories/how_nantucket_helped_light_world
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080220135651/http://www.teara.govt.nz/EarthSeaAndSky/HarvestingTheSea/Whaling/en to http://www.teara.govt.nz/EarthSeaAndSky/HarvestingTheSea/Whaling/en
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The "catches by country and year" and "catches by country and species" sections just were removed from the article entirely ( and following edits), with reference to WP:NOSTATS. This does not seem justified to me on two counts:
* From the guideline:  - These statistics were neither unrelated nor unexplained; they were accompanied by several paragraphs of sourced explanation, which have also been removed. Up front, there is nothing in this guideline that suggests that the tables ought to be removed on content grounds.
* A case could be made that the tables take up too much screen real estate, with which I would actually agree. The solution here is not to rip out this material and everything related to it, but to simply pre-collapse the tables. In any case, several of the accompanying summary graphics (especially Whaling_Species_since_1900.png and Whales_caught_recently.png) are exemplary uses of imagery to summarize such tables, and the guideline offers no excuse whatsoever to remove them.
These edits have removed a large amount of useful and well-referenced material from the article, based on what seems to be a misreading of the applicable guidelines. I suggest reinstating the material and collapsing the tables while we are at it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: @Elmidae @Jay_D._Easy Thank you for your comments on the tables, text and graphics. I put them in last year, and support your suggestion to pre-collapse the tables. I didn't know that was possible. Numbersinstitute (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of catch records 

message: I appreciate the copyediting, and respect the request not to interfere while it goes on. Two points:
A useful cite on transition from not eating cetaceans to eating them was lost. I suggest putting in the following:
*Diet analysis shows that humans in Sicily started eating cetaceans around 6200 BCE, and there is evidence these were stranded, not hunted. Previous residents of the Sicilian site, from 9100-6500 BCE, did not eat cetaceans.
The study on US incentives from shared financing is not summarized accurately before or after the copyedit. I suggest the following:
*Investment and financing arrangements allowed managers of whaling ventures to share their risks by selling some equity, but retain a substantial portion of the equity. As a result, their incentive was to maximize their personal returns by sending ships to areas which had caught most whales in recent years, rather than  going to diverse areas to lower investors' risk of a bad year. This stifled diversity in whaling voyages and increased industry-wide risk.Eric Hilt, "Investment and Diversification in the American Whaling Industry." Journal of Economic History 2007 67(2): 292–314.  Kim9988 (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  2019 copyediting Comment