Talk:Cetacean intelligence

message: The only citation I think anyone is going to find for this is in the National Enquirer. I recommend it be deleted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.57.60.171 (talk) 04:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dolphin aiding in cross-species birth?

message: "The cetacean neocortex, on the other hand, has only five layers, and there is little differentiation of outer layers according to function. The neocortex of the cetacean brain has a highly developed layer I and VI"
Now is it 5 or 6? :) Layer VI (=6) can only be present if there are (at least) 6 of them. Matt Kovacs (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of layers in the neocortex 

message: FYI, the article on Treeshrews says, as follows, "Treeshrews have a higher brain to body mass ratio than humans, though this is not uncommon for animals weighing less than a kilogram."  If this is true, this necessarily means that dolphins do not have the highest brain-body ratio for non-humans (at issue in the "Brain size" section).  However, the treeshrew article was not cited.  Perhaps it would be better to say that dolphins have the highest brain-body ratio for an animal of a certain mass (perhaps, over one kilogram?).  Of course, again, the issue of citation.Philolexica (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Brains of Treeshrews 

message: Are dolphins intentionally causing their own death, (via mass strandings as in recent and not so recent news or otherwise)?
:"Mass suicide of the whales" (actually delphinidae)
:"In situations of great stress in captivity they have been known to commit suicide by starvation, battering against walls, or drowning." ( and also )
How can this behaviour be interpreted?  Are they aware that cessation of life would mean cessation of physical (or existential) pain?  Does it imply a consciousness level comparable to ours?
:It seems very unlikely (from an evolutionary standpoint) that this behaviour could be genetically induced, and I know of no other animal capable of contraddicting so directly the survival instinct. --Michele Bini 21:15, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's quite similar to panic.  From an evolutionary standpoint, since they're going to die anyway, they might as well do something they haven't done before, even something fatal. --Ihope127 6 July 2005 18:52 (UTC)
The shallow wedge of water at a beach acts as an acoustic absorber.  It's likely that to sonar - odontocetes' primary sense - the beach looks like open water, since it doesn't provide the sound reflection that most barriers would.  Psychologically, it's probably akin to a thirsty man pursuing a mirage deeper into the desert.  Warren Dew 18:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If entire schools of dolphins beach themselves, regularly, through misinterpreting visual or sonic signals, then this surely must detract from any claim that the intelligence of dolphins is comparable to that of humans. Humans learn and record signs of danger, and such becomes important communal knowledge, transmitted orally within hunter-gatherer tribes, and then via writing in settled farming villages and towns. Myles325a (talk) 04:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's different, if they see it as open water, then its akin to someone walking into a normal field, then suddenly falling into a chasm, which looked exactly like a normal field to them. they would all die, and be unable to learn. Everyone else would also die. other, isolated groups could also fall prey to it, as they may not be able to carry concepts in their noise. It's like a blind person tripping on a large rock and saying they're stupid for not seeing it. that would probably be original research though. Sliver Slave (talk) 23:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

text: My  original point was that humans would learn about these dangers and transmit that knowledge within their communities. They would also have some plan in place to rescue those individuals who did become trapped in this way. The fact that dolphins do not do this indicates that cetacean intelligence is comparable to that of other herd animals like cattle, and not with homo sapiens. I don't think that comparing dolphins with blind people, as opposed to being stupid really helps the argument that they are intelligent. The notion that they never learn because they all die is contrived and implausible. When large numbers of people go missing those remaining try to work out what happened and take steps to ensure it does not do so again. Myles325a (talk) 04:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I must refute the above claim that the behavior of beaching reflects upon the intelligence of cetaceans, putting their consciousness beneath that of humans. For example, panic in the human primate results in mobs of people trampling other people underfoot in order to meet their escape. Through much research of late due to the need to recognize whether military sonar causes panic-induced beaching and other negative impacts upon marine mammals, researchers keep coming to the same conclusion- beaching may be induced by sheer panic. Take for example that a wave of sonar will travel quite a large range without losing its deafening volume, so-to-speak. Perhaps pods could be observed which have recognized that putting their heads above water during training exercises may be further proof of the sonar cause of mass beaching, but for now, those studies are a great reference point if any have access. One good example of humans not learning from past mistakes? Living at the feet of volcanoes. It only takes a few generations to forget what has come before, even with our ability to record things that have come before, such as in the written word, or through oral stories, which, we have no idea whether oral stories are passing between mother and calf in cetacean songs, for we have yet to crack the whales' codes.--AmandaEP (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

text: It seems to me this protracted discussion says very little about whether dolphins are intelligent and a great about whether certain Wikipedia editors are. I have to wonder with Myles325a's "animals" "why [he is] making that infernal racket that sounds nothing like" rational argument. In any case, the "talk page" is to decide what should go in the article, not to test the capacity of your lungs. TheScotch (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suicidal dolphins? 

message: "they can breathe above water while sleeping."
If you know anything about how this fact was discovered, please add it to the article. (Or is this just one of those urban legends like "ostriches put their head in the sand" ?)
--DavidCary 04:11, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  converting subjective "seems to" into objective fact 

message: This article states that bottlenose have 42.5% of brain size when born whereas humans have 25%...however, what this really means is dolphins behavior is more instinct than learned. For example, the highly intelligent elephant has a brain ratio when born of 35%...which really surpasses dolphins, doesn't it?
And as for the E.Q....only the Bottlenose has an EQ that high...Orca, considered to be the most intelligent have a very low EQ.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.140.44 (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you think these brain ratios are good indicators of intelligence, then you have to accept that elephants are a good one third more intelligent than humans. And I am really dubious about the EQ assertions. Why would Orcas have a low EQ? I saw Free Willy, and he had an EQ higher than Obama's. Myles325a (talk) 04:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth to adult brain ratio? 

message: "However, though [Dolphins learning to perform their own novel and original tricks] impressed researchers at the time, experiments by Neuringer(1992) and others have shown that other animals like pigeons and rats can likewise be trained for variability of response, which given time can result in apparently original behaviour. Whether there is a clear case for dolphins showing real creativity in this experiment is therefore questionable."
I hate to nit-pick, but this really needs to be elaborated on.  It seems what is being said is:
"Dolphins have shown themselves to be capable of original behavior.  Other animals like rats and pigeons have shown themselves to be capable of original behavior as well.  Therefore, it is questionable if dolphins are capable of original behavior."
This doesn't make a lot of sense.  I realize that the reader is probably supposed to assume that rats and pigeons are not capable of "real creativity", but without explaining this, the paragraph in question doesn't flow logically.  Secondarily, why is there the assumption that rats and pigeons are not capable of "real creativity"?  Why would correlations in creative ability between dolphins and rats indicate that dolphins are not creative, as opposed to indicating that rats are creative?
EDIT: I think what they are saying is they are unsure of their own observations. They might be saying they have observed the same (or similar) behavior in rats and pidgeons, and are unsureof the indicated intelligence. Just a thought. 
I know that this is an encyclopedic entry and not an essay, and by no means am I attempting to make a case for rat or pigeon creativity (although people who've owned pet rats and trained pigeons might be inclined to make such a case).  But a statement which essentially says "dolphins appeared to be creative, until pigeons and rats were shown to also be creative, so now it's somewhat doubtful if dolphins are creative" just doesn't make any logical sense.  It's as if the article were to say "Tom is smart.  Dick once seemed to be almost as smart as Tom.  Now we know Harry also seems almost as smart as Tom.  Therefore, it is doubtful if Dick is nearly as smart as Tom."
This will leave many readers asking:  "How the heck do you draw that conclusion?"  It needs to be explained why Harry appearing to be smart makes Dick less intelligent.  --Corvun 02:46, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This is because terms like "intelligent" and "smart" are essentially relational. So if someone says "Dick is smart" and then it is shown that Tom and Harry can do the same things on the same tests as he can, then Dick's smartness means less. Of course, you can be a good post modernist and assert that it is the inalienable right of every living thing to be considered smart, from slime mould to humans, just as it is now asserted that every collection of humans in history has the right to be called a "civilization" even if they were naked paleolothic stone age tribes who had yet to discover fire. I think the original finding that pigeons and rats do well on these tests is quite plausible. The much overrated intelligence of cetaceans (and some other herd animals) is the result of romanticism run wild and without scientific discrimination. Dolphins CAN'T talk, think in the abstract, make future plans or do any of those things we associate with human intelligence. Yes, they ARE cute, and intelligent for animals, but they are not on our level. Myles325a (talk) 05:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Sequitir 

message: Is the claim that dolphins can harness 'ocean energy' through cavitation-induced cold fusion akin to the claim that there is an invisible green man standing in the corner of the room? I can't see him, but I have it on excellent authority that he is there.
:A claim as wild as this needs a convincing citation, surely? Compared to the cold fusion claim, the suggestion that dolphins have a 'higher level of consciousness' (with a link to...quantum mechanics????) seems merely excentric.
:This is a question (I changed it into a question mark). The only statement is that there is an invisible man, which is really not that weird if you think about it too much. So no, I doubt the claims are akin. >:-)
::If you look outside of quantum mechanics and instead focus upon normal everyday physics, ocean energy in the form of "wave action" (popularly discussed as hydro-kinetics: "This Pike Research report reviews five main types of marine and hydrokinetic technologies: ocean wave, tidal stream, river hydrokinetic, ocean current and ocean thermal resources.") itself, and the gravitational force which causes tides, could be harnessed by cetaceans without mention of some "invisible green man" ever coming into play. Just pure physics (but obviously you'll need references for that which I do not know if they are declassified, if they even exist). A dolphin can quite easily ride, like a bird does air currents, water current. But following along with the idea of cavitation (and there is definitely more than one type of it), it is more likely a cause of mass-beaching due to its ability to negatively impact the body, rather than a cetacean's ability to harness it internally or otherwise. I'm not referring to cold fusion here, that claim seems absolutely absurd to me.--AmandaEP (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ocean Energy? 

message: I'm moving the to-do list from the "Communication" paragraph to here, since it doesn't really belong in the article, and I've filled up some of that paragraph anyway.
Should be a sub section of communication abilities
*sign language
*echolocation
*body language
*some studies have made wild claims.
*need to criticise methodology as well.
LjL 20:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Communication 

message: Removed this section until these points can be expanded. I know all pages are works in progress but notes-to-self and others and talking points shouldn't be on the main page. 
Learning and memory
Should be a section on learning skills. Scientific tests relevant to:
*Learning tricks - dolphins have been taught extremely complicated tricks. 
*Lying and subterfuge - there are some studies which suggest ability to use subterfuge. Dolphin training the trainer suggestions
*Learning to learn - there was a study on the ability to learn that a variable response was required to get a reward. Did similar study on humans and compared.
*Long and short term memory
*Ability to abstract
*Need to criticise the methodology of these studies Marskell 15:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it wouldn't be thinking "You're stupid" if it was getting fed on the basis of success in doing those tests. A while ago I proposed a test for testing how advanced dolphin communication might be. Essentially, the set up was with 2 dolphins working together to get a meal for the both of them. Dolphin 1 is allowed to swim into an enclosure which has on its wall different symbols, like seaweed, crabs etc. One of these has a light flashing, and the dolphin has been taught that if it presses its nose on this symbol, fish ready to eat will be dropped into the pool. Later in the experiment, the dolphin is prevented from pressing the symbol. It has to leave the pool, and only the other dolphin can enter. But the other dolphin is not shown the flashing light. The first dolphin must tell the second dolphin the correct symbol to press, and it must do this while they are both outside the enclosure. Failure to press the correct symbol on the first attempt means they cannot get the gift fish. This means that the dolphins must communicate abstract information one to the other, like "the correct symbol is the whale - press that one". I wonder if anything like that has ever been done. Myles325a (talk) 05:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Learning and memory 

message: Neutral point of view is questionable on comments on the US Navy.  Ideally someone should research public knowledge on this topic, to see if it is directly relevant to "cetacean intelligence".
I suspect that the Navy primarily conducts sensory and physiological research, in addition to training for deployment-related purposes such as mine tagging.  However none of these topics are relevant to "intelligence".
The existing text explictly uses terms such as "allegedly" and "unsubstantiated".  Therefore the specific comments covered by these descriptors are hearsay, and not encyclopedic with NPOV.
Recommend deleting all of these references, unless information obviously relevant to cetacean intelligence can be found, and written with NPOV.  Santaduck 08:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV: US Navy

message: Continuing with the discussion on NPOV/US Navy above, the entire section resides in a section called Research Difficulties'.  IMHO this entire section is rather inaccurate, or perhaps misleading through fault of not being specific.  
In full, the text reads:
Research difficulties
Knowledge about the capabilities of the dolphin brain is limited because of major research difficulties. Research of cetacean behavior in the wild is among the most expensive and difficult to carry out, owing to the nature of the environment they inhabit. There have therefore been relatively few scientific studies of dolphins in the wild, and most direct observations are anecdotal. Studies based on captive dolphins have limits because it is not clear how natural their behaviour is under those conditions.
In addition, the United States Navy has allegedly carried out a substantial amount of research which has not been put in the public domain. The U.S. Navy does acknowledge that its dolphin program has trained dolphins to search and tag mines and warn of divers approaching installations. Rumours circulate about less benign uses, but these are unsubstantiated.
Some comments:
* What is the use of having a section on "research difficulties".  In other words, what does the content illuminate about the parent topic, which is cetacean intelligence?  More useful might be a categorical listing of the broad types of research methodologies or paradigms, and their typical aims, as well as any interactions between these methodologies.  Also useful might be why dolphins (in particular Atlantic Bottlenosed) were chosen for intelligence research in the first place (large brain, fissured brain, behavioral complexity/plasticity in wild, social complexity in wild, relatively abundantly available species, social behavior in relatively small groups that can be displaced to captive situations and even human animal trainers, social differences between pacific vs. atlantic bottlenosed).
* The comment on expense is not accurate, as it makes no relative comparisons with other types of reseach.  For example research on sperm whales is more expensive.  Research on bottlenose dolphins in shallow water areas (e.g. sarasota, bahamas) is likely less expensive than open ocean research.  Specifically, research on the intelligence of certain species other than bottlenose dolphins is impractical for many reasons, for example social issues (spinner dolphins), rarity (river dolphins), or issues of expense and practicality (e.g. no one studies the cognition of blue whales!).  In comparison, research with bottlenosed dolphins is quite economical and practical, which is exactly why it is one of the most commonly-researched cetacean species.  However, if an article on expense were justified, then it should instead provide verifiable evidence such as the cost of keeping the animals: feed, veterinary care, and a salt-water environment (which for example is much more expensive in an inland area such as The Mirage Hotel in Las Vegas than an area adjacent to the ocean where salt water may simply be pumped in).  Also there is the cost of doing the research: faculty costs, grants, graduate students, university overhead, equipment, staff, and other such details which probably do not merit a wikipedia entry specific to dolphin research.
* The comment about research in the laboratory is also misleading.  Research in the lab and in the wild may have similar, or very different aims.  Often, there is interplay between the two (such as research on synchronous behavior, creativity, and language/signature whistles, echolocation).  Some types of research are nearly impossible to do in the wild ( for example echolocation ), whereas others are impossible in the captive situation (broad social patterns of fission/fusion society).  "Accuracy" to the natural situation is an issue which may be raised, but by no means is universally relevant, nor universally a measure of the research's validity. Calling all field research "anecdotal" is recklessly inaccurate.
Will be deleting the entry for now.Santaduck 07:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Research Difficulties

message: URL from author K. LeVasseur removed from External Links section, despite added note that the article was written in a "scientific manner," which served as a flag that NPOV or encyclopedic value might actually be an issue.  Article has little direct academic relevance to the topic of "cetacean intelligence", and the author is most well known as an anti-captivity activist rather than a cetacean researcher.  Details of his arrest and conviction for which he is most well known in the late 70s are available.  I Googled one example here:  .  A news article on his continued activism and employment in the transit industry is available here: .  Note: have not systematically gone through all other external links entries for encyclopedic reference and NPOV.  These external references should be cleaned up in general, and categorized, as someone has already done for "self-awareness" references.
I am K. LeVasseur (aka Cetaman) and I am concerned that there is no signature on this threat (above and beyond the points made in this thread).  Problems may be due to my lack of familiarity with this protocol. Cetaman (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: More NPOV

message: Hello, I am a little skeptical of the statement, "It is notable that second-order alliances in bottlenose dolphins are the most hierarchically complex social structure observed in the animal kingdom, excluding the human species."
To me it appears that there are many animals with arguably more complex social structures than bottlenose dolphin secound order alliances. What about ant and bees and termite. Ants have queens, multiple types of worker, soldiers, young, this seems more complex on some levels to me. Or chimpanzees, they can form similarly sized complex alliances. I have added 'arguably one of'. Without references the original statement is too strong. Nicolharper 18:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know who added it, but I'll help look for a cite. —Viriditas | Talk 21:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Social complexity

message: I just saw an article, , which talks about how dolphins actually refer to each other by names. Does somebody want to say more about that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhoenixSeraph (talk • contribs) 20:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: New Scientist  and others are covering the story, but I can't find the journal article as of yet. —Viriditas | Talk 21:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you need access to the article once it's published (it hasn't been yet, only advance notice went out to the media), let me know, I have access to the online abstracts and articles. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: As of 2006, scientists have observed many dolphins using what could only be described as a "name" for another dolphin. Using variances in pitch and frequency, dolphins have been observed directing communication at specific individuals and third and fourth parties.
I'm not sure how this is different from signature whistles, which are already talked about in the article. If there is a difference, please re-add and reference.
LjL 21:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dolphin Names

message: Paul Manger of Johannesburg's University of the Witwatersrand has recently published a very widely publicised article on this subject (peer reviewed), in the Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society (An examination of cetacean brain structure with a novel hypothesis correlating thermogenesis to the evolution of a big brain). Basically, through a study of cetacean brain structure, he's been able to determine that the main component is "glia", which is used primarily to produce heat and (in this case) maintain the brain's temperature in a cold water environment. The main thrust of his study is that the brain size of water dwelling warm blooded creatures is not so much determined by intelligence, but simple insulation. OzoneO 14:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative explanation for brain size 

message: Dolphin tend to do badly in problem solving test which is better indication of intelligence. You might notice that almost all the evidences presented as indication of dolphin intelligence is to do with its social aspect (such as recognising oneself in the mirror). Sure, they are very social and friendly to human. This shouldn't be confused with intelligence. I notice the same cultural bias in the West where dogs are considered intelligent simply because they can do tricks and are good pet. This kind of elementary errors shouldn't be included in encyclopedia. You might be suprised to learn that Octpus, for example, is extremly intelligent. Vapour
I don't mind that some people believe that intelligence="social skill" as opposed to intelligence="Abstract Problem Solving Skill". I do mind it when ideologue who hold the former view deliberately censor verified content supporting the later view. Vapour
Given the language and physical barriers between dolphins and humans there is a limit to how accurately we can test their problem solving ability.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abuonfiglio (talk • contribs) 17:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: IQ isn't same as EQ

message: If you look at the references offered up by both sides of this inteligence debate [|Not inteligent] and [| are inteligent] it would appear that the Not inteligent case is weak if it is just based on this reference. This is because the reference just has a speculation as to a reason as why the brains of the dophin is big without having to envoke intelegences. Whereas the are inteligent refernce refers to data measuring intelegence and quotes a journal article. Herman, L.M. (2002). Exploring the cognitive world of the bottlenosed dolphin. In M. Bekoff, C. Allen & G. Burghardt (Eds.), The cognitive animal: Empirical and theoretical perspectives on animal cognition (pp. 275–283). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Ttguy 06:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevertheless, I think that Manger's paper should be mentioned rather than ignored completely.  It's appeared in a number of media outlets (at Reuters, for example).  If his case is weak (he suggests "dolphins have a superabundance of glia and very few neurons"), then refutations to his arguments should be mentioned.  It is possible that he's not saying that dolphins are necessarily dumb, but that other animals may be smarter than previously believed (here's an interesting article about that). Esn 06:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: inteligence content dispute

message: Elephants have a brain size up to 5.4 kg compared to human's 1.5 kg brain. This image seems to be wildly inaccurate which shows an elephant brain only slightly larger than mine. I don't know about the other brains shown here, but I'm removing it from this article (the only one it appears in) until it's checked over. —Pengo 04:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The elephant brain size looks about right to me. In the image it looks about 50% wider and longer than the human brain. Assuming all the dimensions scale and the density is unchanged this gives 1.5kg.*1.5^3 = 5.06kg which is about correct for the elephant brain, given the amount of variation in individual brain sizes and errors in estimation. Nicolharper 09:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The above arguments suggest that the brains are in the same scale. The picture is from University of Wisconsin and Michigan State Comparative Mammalian Brain Collections and the National Museum of Health and Medicine, which I suspect is a good source. For these two reason I think that the picture is okay. Thanks for checking though and having such a sharp eye for potentially problematic details. I will replace the picture into the article if that is okay. Nicolharper 18:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops sorry. Didn't realise elephant brains were so convoluted either (and are denser than humans') Should have done my research better. —Pengo 14:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elephant brain 

message: Why is the IQ of the individuals believing in near-human levels of cetacean intelligence necessary in the article? Referring to the passage "...although it is believed by some humans possessing IQ's of 200 that dolphins and other cetaceans have an intelligence potential that is at least equal to humans of average intelligence (IQ 100)." Eleblanc (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second paragraph, referring to intelligence 

message: Article States : "However, many scientists now tend to rank dolphins about the level of elephants in "intelligence" tests and say that dolphins haven't shown any unusual talent with problem solving compared with the other animals classed with very high intelligence[10]."
Source States : "But others say that in our enthusiasm to anthropomorphize dolphins, we give them powers they just don't possess. A closer look suggests that much of the dolphin's large brain is taken up with echolocation and handling acoustical information -- processes at which they excel. But dolphins tend to rank at about the level of elephants in "intelligence" tests and haven't shown any unusual talent at problem solving."
It is from a site that is giving a lot of evidence to the contrary, they were simply reconizing the a different point of view.  I have no clue where the "Many Scientists" comes from.  Does anyone a different source (perhaps one of the many scientists?) 
- StarDolph (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missource? 

message: With ref to Michele Bini’s comment above, dolphins are NOT the only animals that engage in self-destructive behaviour when panic-stricken or in extreme pain. All the ‘higher mammals’ including horses, cats, dogs and apes can present with human-like symptoms of severe stress. Dogs which lose a much-loved master can show every sign of ‘nervous breakdown’ and clinical depression, both behaviorally and physically. Other mammals will go on rampages, chew their own fur and eat their own excrement, refuse food and howl incessantly. Apes will throw themselves against their cages. In a series of notorious but well-conducted experiments of the 1960s, researchers tormented dogs to the point where they not only had ‘breakdowns’ but showed every sign of having become permanently insane through terror and pain. These were ‘higher’ animals. I have no idea whether you can make a butterfly mad, or drive a snail to distraction.  Myles325a (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mad behaviour as a result of stress in non-human animals. 

message: I've heard before that dolphins in particular have "signature whistles" - sort of a name for themselves. I don't have the opportunity (nor the eloquence to put it in words for the article) to do more research on this, but I think it might prove to be an interesting addition in regards to self-awareness.  74.211.30.145 (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signature Whistles? 

message: I find that this article seems to read more as a thesis than anything else, this is due to it presenting an individual view coupled with inaccuracies, unmet citation requirements, NPOV, weasel words and so on.  It seems to forego the merits of an encyclopaedic article in order to convince the reader of a singular outcome and it feels very anecdotal because of that.
Therefore, at least to me, I don't think it stands up to scrutiny when considered as an encyclopaedic article.  It might make a decent Scientific paper but without the references and proper research to back it up, it's nothing more than a thesis, and I don't think Wikipedia is the place for a thesis.
I'd move for a deletion of this article, as the amount of factual information therein is not enough to allow a reader to draw their own conclusions or do their own research.  If not a deletion then the article needs to be cut down and then cleaned up, adding only elements which meet encyclopaedic criteria.
94.193.119.106 (talk) 04:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please raise specific examples that you feel requires work.  Have you compared this entry to other encyclopedia entries on the same topic? Viriditas (talk) 05:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thesis? 

message: I mentioned before that I believe that this is thesis-like, after some research I found that this is grounds for a clean-up.  I believe that it needs to be noted in a way that people can see before reading the article.
I will explain my rationale for each template message.
Cite Sources: There are many instances in the article where citations are not present, yet they should be in order for this to qualify as an article.
Weasel Words: I'm not a seasoned editor, so I won't go tampering with the article, but there is an instance of Weasel Words that should be removed.
Misleading: The difference between IQ and EQ is noteworthy, but the article writer does his best to lead the reader to believe that EQ is a completely fair and Scientifically factual measure of intelligence, it is not.  This along with the missing citations leaves the article feeling somewhat intellectually dishonest.
Essay: I believe the article reads like an essay or thesis rather than an article, there isn't much there that's truly encyclopaedic, there are too many implications, not enough citations, and conclusions drawn by the article writer.  I believe that these elements give the article an unencyclopaedic feel.
I feel that these are completely relevant with the current state of the article and I would protest their removal, I'd like the opinion of one of Wikipedia's main editors on this as I feel that there are issues with this article that are just being brushed over.93.97.227.130 (talk) 05:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, as before, you are asked to stop speaking in generalities that cannot be addressed and to to provide specific examples of problems that require attention.  I will now revert your templating of the article until you fulfill this simple request. Viriditas (talk) 06:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added some template messages. 

message: The table is just randomly there, without any indication of what the scores mean, where they came from, etc. There should be more information, or it should be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.189.134.229 (talk) 06:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely. Given the length of time people had to respond the above comment, I think I will remove it right away.  Fedor (talk) 08:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table in the problem solving ability section 

message: Those interested in aspects of Cetacean intelligence might be rewarded with a look at this rather out-of-the way story. I do not believe that whales, dolphins etc possess intelligence markedly different from other herd mammals but the story of Old Tom will open some eyes and raise some eyebrows. Here, a wild Orca made what could be called a contract with a whaling community, and helped these humans capture and kill whales in return for being given the tongue and lips of the prey. This was the “Law of the Tongue” and for DECADES, these whalers had it very easy as Old Tom, with other whales alongside him, herded migratory Baleen whales into Twofold Bay (in Australia), and waited for the carcasses to be strung out for them to take their reward—the tongue and lips—after which the carcasses would be processed in the usual way. Old Tom died in 1930 but the museum in the town of Twofold Bay displays his skeleton, and he is still a revered legend there. 
The Old Tom page does not provide much detail on this fascinating story, which, were it not well-documented, would be regarded as typically new age poppycock. The page gives little detail of other aspects of the story. Apparently, Old Tom was betrayed by some unbelievably greedy whalers who tried to take a Baleen whale from his grip and in so doing broke his teeth, leading eventually to his death. After Old Tom’s death, the whales in his group went elsewhere, and it is thought that their tame disposition towards humans led to whalers targeting them as easy catches. 
As dolphins rather than whales are regarded as being the more intelligent of the cetaceans I wonder if there is any record of them (or other wild mammals) entering effectively into win-win contracts with their human neighbours. 
It is typical of the apathy of Australians to most elements of their history that this astonishing story is given a bare couple of paragraphs in WP, and no one has yet had anything at all to add to the talk page there. You can compare this to the page concerning the trivial Exploding Whale story, which is given about 5 times the coverage, many more photos and notes and where the Talk Page is full, with two archives so far (!)  Myles325a (talk) 06:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You do realize the skeleton of the killer whale at that museum was found to be only 35 years old (Ellis, Men & Whales, 1991, p. 112). "Old Tom" was claimed to be 80-90 years old (very doubtfull). Thus, either it's not "Old Tom" or there was more than one "Old Tom". OldBabyBlue (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Tom - the whale with a whale of a deal 

message: There should be a picture of cetacean vocal organs and samples of their languge available.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.157.69 (talk) 22:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language 

message: Are dolphins good with math? If so, how do they view numbers and mathematics?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.157.69 (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Math 

message: If dolphins are 'intelligent' could they have complex belief systems, maybe some hard for humans to understand?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.157.69 (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: This whole article is in need of a lot of work, especially in appropriate sourcing, but the Self Awareness section is particularly written like original research. The first source is a non-academic article about a 2006 mirror test study with elephants, ironically one that is co-authored by Diana Reiss, one of the leading researchers in cetacean cognition and author of several published dolphin mirror test studies not cited here. Many of the sources for the article seem to focus on elephant and human intelligence, often mentioning cetaceans only by comparison. The External Links section may not be normally considered encyclopedic, but at present it's a far better list of reliable and relevant sources for this topic. I removed this unsourced, unattributed sentence from the Self Awareness section: 
:Dr. Gallup termed the results "the most suggestive evidence to date" of mirror self-recognition in dolphins, but "not definitive" because he was not certain that the dolphins were not interpreting the image in the mirror as another animal.
...which is nearly copy-pasted from this article: "Research suggests dolphins capable of self-recognition" which can be found in External Links but not in References at all. On top of that the wording suggested a 1996 study was done "as a response to this criticism", which apparently consists of this quote from 2001. I also removed the false and POV aspersion that since the published, peer-reviewed study hasn't been repeated its scientific validity is questionable. One of the persistent 'themes' of this article seems to be the scientific consensus that elephant intelligence is quite substantial while that of cetaceans is dubious and debatable. This is pretty clear when comparing the equivalent section Elephant cognition: Self awareness, which is devoid of 'debate' like the rest of that article. It's worth noting that the same single 2006 study co-authored by Diana Reiss is the source there also, while her decades of peer-reviewed dolphin cognition studies (not to mention her book "Dolphin in The Mirror") are not mentioned and/or criticized as problematic here. Apparently only her cetacean mirror tests are 'susceptible to the Clever Hans effect'. Some might contend I'm simply arguing a POV in the other direction by downplaying ample scientific evidence for elephant intelligence; however it then seems odd that Reiss doesn't mention her cited elephant mirror study, or even elephants at all during this 2012 lecture: Thinking dolphin: Diana Reiss at TEDx, in which she lists animals who exhibit signs of self awareness. I believe the preponderance of elephant related content and references at least should be reviewed for being WP:UNDUE.  AveVeritas (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self Awareness 

message: I suspect the phrase "behavioral mimicry (inter- and intra-specific)" should contain species instead of specific. 16:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible typo 

message: The last paragraph of that section contains the following sentence:
"The dolphin's greater dependence on sound processing is evident in the structure of its brain: its neural area devoted to visual imaging is only about one-tenth that of the human brain, while the area devoted to acoustical imaging is about 10 times as large."
The dolphin's acoustical-imaging area is ten times as large as what? Ten times as large as the dolphin's visual-imaging area, i.e. about the same size as the visual area of humans?  Ten times as large as the acoustical-imaging area of humans?  Ten times as large as the human brain itself?
VictoriaWordNerd (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguity in Brain Structure section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Cetacean intelligence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100727161600/http://www.scientificamerican.com:80/blog/post.cfm?id=are-whales-smarter-than-we-are to http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=are-whales-smarter-than-we-are
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Cetacean intelligence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080514003531/http://tursiops.org/dolfin/guide/smart.html to http://tursiops.org/dolfin/guide/smart.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080509142153/http://www.elephantvoices.org/tools/documents/ElephantBrain_shoshani.pdf to http://www.elephantvoices.org/tools/documents/ElephantBrain_shoshani.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Cetacean intelligence. 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/20061006163548/http://www.deepocean.net:80/deepocean/index.php?science09.php to http://www.deepocean.net/deepocean/index.php?science09.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061011195647/http://www.bubblerings.com:80/bubblerings/media.cfm to http://www.bubblerings.com/bubblerings/media.cfm
*Added  tag to http://www.ria.ie/getattachment/Publications/Journals/Biology-and-Environment/Online-access/109B2-(2009)/02-Hickey.pdf.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Cetacean intelligence. 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/20051228135245/http://www.dolphin-institute.org:80/ to http://www.dolphin-institute.org/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060517170641/http://www.dolphin-institute.org:80/our_research/dolphin_research/dolphinresearchpublications.htm to http://www.dolphin-institute.org/our_research/dolphin_research/dolphinresearchpublications.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Cetacean intelligence. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.deepocean.net/deepocean/index.php?science09.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bubblerings.com/bubblerings/media.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070127002424/http://news.mongabay.com/2006/1127-whale.html to http://news.mongabay.com/2006/1127-whale.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040204162005/http://www.wadedoak.com/projectinterlock.htm to http://www.wadedoak.com/projectinterlock.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050515212831/http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~emiii/alb.pdf to http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~emiii/alb.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dolphin-institute.org/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dolphin-institute.org/our_research/dolphin_research/dolphinresearchpublications.htm
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) 01:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cetacean intelligence. 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/20140413143620/http://marineanimalwelfare.com/Intelligence%20in%20Cetaceans.htm to http://marineanimalwelfare.com/Intelligence%20in%20Cetaceans.htm
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) 00:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cetacean intelligence. 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/20080416015627/http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn10661 to https://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn10661&print=tru
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) 19:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :Remove unsourced (tagged December 2015) "Comparative cognition" section. The article has been promoted to B-class. The criteria states: "The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources (WP:Reliable sources), and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited."  --  Otr500 (talk) 02:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced content 

message: There is not a mandated minimum number of "External links" but the relevant sections in the External links guideline: ELPOINTS (#3) and WP:ELMIN, as well as the policy on WP:NOTREPOSITORY, indicates that 26 links if far too may so I moved the trimmed links here for any desired discussion.
;Cetacean brain
# Bottle-nose dolphin brain from the comparative mammalian brain collection.
# "Dolphin brains" – An AAAS Science Netlinks feature.
# "Brains, Behaviour and Intelligence in Cetaceans (Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises)" A review of scientific literature in the field which was originally written for a conference on "ethical whaling practices" and later published in the British science magazine New Scientist.
# "Whales share human brain cells" article comparing human and cetacean brains.
;Popular media
# "Watching Whales Watching Us" by Charles Siebert. New York Times Magazine, July 8, 2009
# "Deep thinkers" – Article from The Guardian about dolphin intelligence.
# "Prologue to encounters with Whales and Dolphins" – Article mainly on research difficulties with whales and dolphins.
# "Clever Dolphins Use Shells to Catch fish" – Wired, August 25, 2011
# "How smart are killer whales? Orcas have 2nd-biggest brains of all marine mammals – Phys.org, March 8, 2010
;Scientific or academic sources
# "Memory for recent actions in the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus): Repetition of arbitrary behaviors using an abstract rule" – Research study examining ability of dolphins to remember, learn and abstract.
# "The interplay between social networks and culture: theoretically and among whales and dolphins" – Cantor, M. and H. Whitehead, 2013. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 368.
# The Dolphin Institute – Affiliated with Louis Herman's Kewalo Basin Marine Mammal Laboratory. See also their dolphin publications list for cognitive and sensory research.
# "Individually distinctive acoustic features in sperm whale codas" – Antunes, R., T. Schulz, S. Gero, H. Whitehead, J. Gordon and L. Rendell, 2011. Animal Behaviour 81: 723-730.
;Self-awareness research
# "Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists", BBC News, 21 February 2012
# "Evidence of self-awareness in the bottlenose dolphin" – Academic study of dolphin self-awareness by Marten and Psarakos(1994).
# "Using Self-View Television to Distinguish between Self-Examination and Social Behavior in the Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)" – Another study by Marten and Psarakos on self-reflection using TV (1995).
# "Mirror self-recognition in the bottlenose dolphin: A case of cognitive convergence" – Academic study on self-awareness by Reiss and Marino (1998) (HTML version).
# "Dolphin Self-Recognition Mirrors Our Own" – Another article concerning Reiss and Marino study.
# "Research suggests dolphins capable of self-recognition" – Article concerning two studies on self recognition in dolphins.
;Other or uncategorized
# "Towards Communication with Dolphins" – Project using computer software to try to understand dolphin communication.
# Leafy Seadragon – Open source software for researching dolphin communication using emission and recognition of underwater whistles.
# "Organisation of Communication System in Tursiops Truncatus Montagu" by Vladimir I. Markov and Vera M. Ostrovskaya.
# "Bubble Ring Play of Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops Truncatus): Implications for Cognition" – McCowan B, Marino L, Vance E, Walke L, Reiss D, Journal of Comparative Psychology.
--  Otr500 (talk) 03:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Hello, I created the article Shelling (fishing) but I wonder if it should go elsewhere. Fishing strategies ? Etc. Yug (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Shelling (fishing)|Shelling]], [[Sponging]] 

message: The first paragraph of the 'Brain structure' section is about elephant brains and echidna brains. Would it not be better for the section to start with information about cetacean brain structure, and only then move on to dealing with inter-species comparisons.
Guyal of Sfere (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brain structure 

message: Cetaceans are not considered to have REM sleep as the modern consensus go.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8665646/ 81.207.186.222 (talk) 09:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  REM sleep