Talk:Whaling/Archive 1

message: A respected Cetacean scientist studying cetacean intelligence ( Dr. Margaret Klinowska, of the Animal Welfare and Human-Animal Interactions Group at the University of Cambridge ) states:
" There is no trans-species definition of intelligence, simplistic notions based on absolute brain-mass or brain-to-body-weight ratios are specious. Cetacean brains are structurally more primitive than those of hedgehogs and they score lower than ferrets in learning ability. Attempts to teach dolphins to communicate have succeeded only in producing sequential ordering of responses for reward. Dr. Klinowska concluded that by implying that only intelligent or otherwise "special" animals are worthy of consideration, the myth of cetacean intelligence was counterproductive to animal welfare and conservation."
(Quoted from Conference  on Problems and Strategies in the Scientific Management of Fisheries and Marine Mammals..April 12, 1994)
Please list or cite these comparative studies between cetaceans and other non-human animals  Tannin, one or two will do.
Or readers may conclude (c) You have your own agenda, which is reinforced by your POV above. Correct me (newbie) if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that a neutral pov was the objective on wikipedia Sumeria
:I want to scuttle back home to my books before I answer this one :) Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:35, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Cetacean intelligence

message: I think this section is a must in the issue of whaling.  Can someone write about things such as policy of Scientific Comittee or accusation of vote buying? 02:37, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: IWC

message: The cruelity issue being red hearing given the killing of farm cattle is again common argument raised by prowhaling side.  Here are an example from High North Alliance.  http://www.highnorth.no/Cartoon/de-cu-to.htm  You can get similar thing from here.  http://www.highnorth.no/Cartoon/cartoon1.htm
This is the main objection to cruelty argument, not about recent improvement in harpooning technique.  If you are not happy with my standard of English, you are welcome to correct and improve it.  FWBOarticle 15:40, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have included this point, with link, to the method of killing section. Hope its ok. Pcb21| Pete 16:00, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Organic growth; Method of killing

message: As I did with the Faroe Islands article, I've split off the aboriginal whaling section with a short summary left in place - as per the Wikipedia:Summary style policy. Previously we had two sections on aboriginal whaling - I hope I have merged them both into the new article - Aboriginal whaling in an NPOV way. At the same time I did a Engrish to English translation :-). Pcb21| Pete 12:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: New article

message: I saw you converted to a table. Although I think the list looks neater (and others do too in general see Wikipedia:How to use tables and its talk page), lets stick with the table so that I don't revert everything you do :)! However we cannot have, for example, the Pacific Blue Whale subspecies in the Endangered column - it must go in the Lower Risk/CD column where it belongs - similarly for the other populations - else the table simply has data in the wrong columns. Note this means that some populations "move to the right" (i.e. are listed under a less endangered column" and others "move to the left" - it is not all one way. Pcb21| Pete 07:49, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Using a table for conservation status

message: Could someone revert the document back to last version made by Apyule? 61.91.145.67 vandalized the article, and I don't know how to revert.
:Done. If you want to see how to revert a page, have a look here. --Apyule 05:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert, please 

message: Hi Pete, We actually have met once upon a time in a cold faraway place;). Yes, I try hard to keep my edits neutral or present a neutralising (opposite )point of view but it´s not the easiest of things to do when most folk rely on media as fact.
I do understand the field/ subject pretty well from a professional standpoint as you might remember;). How´s about this - I´ll look over what "I" think should be changed / edited to provide a less biased article, communicate that to you for ummmmm review/discussion and we can go from there?. Be warned though, there are swathes I intend to adress/add to when I find the time;) some of which I´ll detail below in my reply to Apyule SammytheSeal 14:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to PCB21 - Apyule

message: A link to a whale meat recipe page is not needed in this article.  It adds nothing to the content of the article and would be like having a link to elk recipes in the hunting article. Plus, this is an encyclopedia, not a web directory. --Apyule 12:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recipe link 

message: This section : " In particular, not a single country in the Southern Hemisphere is currently whaling or intends to, and proposals to permanently forbid whaling South of the Equator are defended by the abovementioned developing countries plus Peru, Uruguay, Australia, and New Zealand, which strongly object to the continuation of Japanese whaling in the Antarctic under the guise of " scientific catches".
Is´nt strictly true, Indonesia (Lamalera) has  a small Sperm whale hunt and small numbers of killer whales,  beaked whales and small cetaceans are taken, last time I looked, Indonesia is in the Southern Hemisphere.SammytheSeal 23:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re : The economic argument