Talk:Whaling in Japan

Organized Whaling section neutrality

Checking the section in question, it looks like the wording is very loaded such as

Domestically, Japanese people have been trying to shift responsibility of whale declines to whaling by other nations for hundreds of years to even today, and claim that their whaling have been completely different to that by other nations.[1] Claiming that their whaling were unlike brutal hunts by foreigners, but being humble and emotional, and Japanese people use all the parts of whale bodies unlike westerners who hunt whales only for oils, and Japanese strictly controlled catch quotas for sake of whales, and they never hunted juveniles and cow-calf pairs as their respects to whales. When they kill whales, hunters invoked the Budda and pray for the repose of whales' souls,[1] and they held funerals for whales and built cenotaphs and graves to them, and gave posthumous Buddhist names to the dead whales, or released deceased fetuses back to the sea after incising cows' bellies, and people of Japan were the best in the world about building healthy relationships with whales, being strongly connected with elitism, antiforeignism, and nationalism.[2][3]

Are these quotations or something, and perhaps this section could be reworded? Seems to take a very cynical/hostile tone against Japanese whaling. Perhaps someone could look further into this. ZeroDamagePen (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroDamagePen (talk • contribs) 15:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done Cleaned up the section, tried to remove POV wording, make it more neutral and more accurate, and added another reference. I haven't removed the "Neutrality Disputed" banner, so if you concur with the editing changes I've made, and the tone of neutrality is no longer in dispute, please feel free to remove the banner. - Boneyard90 (talk) 14:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Whalocaust returns to Japan.

The japanese high-seas fleet has decided to resume large scale whaling for the 2016 season, the corresponding article in now on the BBC News website: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34952538 82.131.150.14 (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Pirate Whaling

An editor removed a relevant section of the article that was complete with references while arbitrarily claiming there was no evidence to support what was written. Why were the references ignored and the section removed without any debate?

I put a lot of work into this article and did my best to ensure it wasn't biased but now it seems to have reverted to a state where random contributors are editing out historical facts they don't agree with and failing to justify why the information should not be included in the article.

Cetamata (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I looked through the edits as far back as January 2015 and didn't see your user name. Which edits are you referring to? Can you link them? - Boneyard90 (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The original edits were put in years ago, along with much of the history sections of the article. So, why was that information about pirate whaling arbitrarily removed with no consideration for the references included? Also, if there is a perceived bias in the text that was removed, would a larger range of reference points to confirm the information be satisfactory for including it in the article? This article is one of those subjects where someone is always offended which is why I stayed away from the opposition portions and stuck mostly to researching history. I can rewrite that piece and expand on it now that I have some time for wiki editing again. Cetamata (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

If you look at the history tab of this article, you can go back in time to your edits way back when. Copy and paste them here so we have an idea of what the issue was, and update the references if needed. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

My apologies. It looks like the data is mostly still there, it's just been altered to get rid of the words 'pirate whaling'. I thought the whole section had been wiped out when I skimmed over the article. Is it just the term 'pirate whaling' that is contentious? For example, the UNEP defines it as "companies that killed whales illegally þ a process known as pirate whaling." Thanks. Cetamata (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe replaced by "illegal" whaling?. Anyway, glad you found the info is still there. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

On accuracy of terms

I believe I (for one) at one time altered the term "pirate whaling", for the following reasons:

• Piracy is a legal term, and furthermore, nobody concerned (i.e. no Japanese whaler) has ever been convicted of "piracy", therefore it would be inaccurate to label Japanese whaling as "pirate whaling".
• "Pirate whaling" does not exist. See the IMB section of the Piracy page: "The International Maritime Bureau (IMB) defines piracy as: the act of boarding any vessel with an intent to commit theft or any other crime, and with an intent or capacity to use force in furtherance of that act." This term "pirate whaling" is an inaccurate colloquialism that fails the definition.
• The IWC is not a legislative body; its resolutions are not binding, and not enforceable. There are no penalties for defiance of the resolutions. Therefore, IWC resolutions are not laws, and whaling of any kind is not, and can not be, "illegal".

I hope this has cleared up the modification in wording. - Boneyard90 (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I see what you're saying but unfortunately editing based on a perceived technicality effectively acts as a euphemism in this case.

In the literature documenting this history it's referred to as 'pirate whaling'. It's a term in common use.

So your position is that the act of a ICRW signatory nation, using foreign entities to hunt additional whales outside of IWC oversight without reporting the catch, when no IWC quota has been agreed on for this catch, cannot be referred to as illegal and not pirate whaling because of your strict interpretation of the word piracy in this case.

One already included reference is the United Nations Environment Programme which refers to this as 'pirate whaling' and describes pirate whaling as illegal. However, it doesn't have to be a legal term to be an appropriate term for the subject matter. It is not intended to refer to conflate the whaling with high seas piracy of shipping lanes. It is intended to identify the unregulated take of whales -- which was purposely obscured from the international regulatory authority. Cetamata (talk) 06:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is another example from US Government documentation.

NOAA Administrator and U.S.Whaling Commissioner Richard A. Frank concerning the 31st meeting of the International Whaling Commission is quoted.

At the meeting, Japan also announced it no longer would import whale meat from non-IWC countries. "This could well end pirate whaling activities outside IWC regulations by ships like the Sierra," Frank said.

Cetamata (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

First, do not try to downplay the significance of legal terms by alluding to a "perceived technicality". It's not a matter of perception, and it's not a technicality. Piracy is a crime, and it's well defined. Whaling is not a crime ... it's more like internationally frowned on. You also try to exaggerate the importance of the source you link. "Government documentation" makes your source sound like a law or other legal policy, when all you've linked is a newsletter, and a quote by a biased official, who uses the term "pirate whaling" much as you want to use it, a slang term of convenience to dramatize the whaling activity and encourage the view that it's an actual crime, rather than what it is, a discouraged practice. I don't see how the term deserves any significant place in this article, and certainly no place that would grant it the appearance of legitimacy, when all it is is a propaganda term to heighten the drama. - Boneyard90 (talk) 12:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Would 'illegal' or 'pirate whaling' apply to hunting protected species? Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Protected by whom? This isn't like Africa, where there are national laws in place, and park police armed with AK-47s who hunt poachers. The whales are in international waters, therefore can't be protected by any one nation's laws, and there is no law enforcement agency in pursuit of the whalers. Besides, the whalers are acting under the jurisprudence of Japan, a sovereign nation. What the whalers are doing is legal, according to the laws of Japan. So, the terms "illegal" or "pirate whaling" represent one point of view, and their use in this article would set a non-neutral POV tone. - Boneyard90 (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem here is quite obvious. Boneyard90 is injecting his personal opinion, or point of view, into the wiki in substitution for terms in common use and authoritative sources of data on the subject of whaling. This is unfortunately not a new problem for this particular wiki where in the past some editors wished to describe the subject with terms like murder and slaughter and others wished to selectively remove information as if the history of the subject doesn't include any scandals or controversies.

Furthermore, statements by International Whaling Commission representatives are part of the historical record concerning Japan's whaling whether you personally agree with them or not. I've now provided two references that are authoritative and relate to the issue directly -- from the United Nations and the government of the United States. There are, of course, many other sources of this information, including history books that also use the term 'Pirate Whaling'. So, are the other editors who maintain this article supposed to use such references, or are they all supposed to ignore Wikipedia policies on WP:NPOV concerning content, like terminology, that they don't personally agree with? Cetamata (talk) 06:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

From the Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, William F. Perrin, Bernd Wursig, J.G.M. 'Hans' Thewissen, Academic Press, Feb 26, 2009, page 1235 -- Illegal whaling occurs in contravention of national laws or internationally agreed quotas, season, area restrictions, and other limitations, whereas "pirate whaling" refers to unregulated whaling conducted outside the aegis of the International Whaling Commission, usually under a flag of convenience. Cetamata (talk) 07:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, when someone wants to be obtuse, there is no way to deal with them. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Nice. I've been trying to maintain an impartial tone, and keep the article NPOV, a concept User:Cetamata has had issue with in the past concerning this subject, to judge from the user's talk page. But now we have a source. The earlier source was unacceptable because it was relaying POV. Quoting a non-NPOV, even if it is in spuriously described "government documentation" is not acceptable. But if it is in "common use" (one source is rarely enough), then the term may have a place in the article. Adding it under the "History" section gives it undue weight. I suggest adding and describing the term and its implications, in the Controversy section, perhaps under one of the sub-headings. - Boneyard90 (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

First, thank you for recognizing that a source has been provided. However, another source was already provided in the article which you did not recognize when you edited the words pirate whaling out. The history book, Men and Whales, by Richard Ellis, Globe Pequot Press, 1999, even includes a chapter titled Pirate Whaling from pages 450 - 456. This source was already cited in the Wiki prior to the removal of the term "pirate whaling". Please make an attempt to review citations prior to removing text you find objectionable in the future.

Second, I respectfully disagree that the information should be removed from the history section due to your personal preferences. I don't think every detail from Ellis and other sources needs to be mentioned. A short paragraph or two summarizing this information (which was already present in the wiki) is appropriate and unbiased in my opinion. However, just because something seems controversial doesn't mean it is being given undue weight according to placement. Pirate whaling caused the International Whaling Commission to change its rules about the importation of whale meat from non-member countries -- and as previously mentioned here at the 31st IWC meeting Japan agreed to not import whale meat from non-members too. This is not an arbitrary argument between activists and whalers about anthropomorphism. It is a historical fact about whaling in Japan. Cetamata (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, at this point I think it's a matter of perspective and placement. If the label "pirate whaling" is applied to the Japanese practice, is it part of the history of whaling in Japan, or is it part of the history of the controversy. Certainly it is not how the Japanese see their whaling practice. They have, in the past, tried to maintain adherence to the rules concerning culling for scientific research. Has the label affected the government's policies, or cultural perceptions? This is supposed to be a history of whaling in Japan, not a history of the debate outside of Japan, nor a history of the protests outside of Japan. I think our current disagreement stems partly with the difficulty in recognizing this distinction, and thus which aspect of the article the inclusion of the term is most relevant. But the distinction between the history of whaling in Japan and the history of the controversy outside Japan, and what effect it has had on one rather than the other, is why I feel it is more appropriate, and more relevant, in the controversy section. - Boneyard90 (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The debate is still crossing into WP:NPOV territory. The Wiki is not to be written from the perspective of Japanese whalers or from the perspective of anti-whaling activists. So how Japanese people might perceive this is not really the subject matter. That is merely a particular point of view. Pirate whaling, in this historical context, was a form of unregulated whaling that Japan's fisheries participated in. Therefore it is relevant to the Whaling in Japan wiki. Yes, it is controversial because this was done without informing the IWC but sometimes historical facts are considered controversial. The participation in pirate whaling was entirely commercial and also occurred long before the research whaling programs were created, by the way. Rather than attempting to shape a narrative that promotes a POV like "[they] always tried to maintain adherence to the rules" (which is factually incorrect), why can't historical details simply be recounted as they happened in brief summary? Cetamata (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)