Talk:Institute of Cetacean Research

I have added an extra info. The previious article appear to imply that ICR is a instiute invented solely to provide cover for commercial whaling which is not the case. It has been a genuine research institute way before the whaling become a political issue. It had to absorbed whaling facility because it previously relied its scientific data on commercial whaling operation which ended after the ban. It now fund whaling operation from the sale of whale meat. FWBOarticle 11:41, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It pretty much is an institute invented solely to provide cover for commercial whaling. This seems very self-evident. BB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.224.137 (talk) 06:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that it isn't completely self evident. It is a nonprofit organization operating under Japanese government law. It is very hard to conclusively say that it is in existence for the primary purpose of commercial whaling. Wikipedia isn't around for guessing without conclusive evidence. We must only state the known facts, not personal interpretation. The controversy section is around for displaying the arguments of critics. We need to make sure that the rest of the article isn't completely biased by our own opinion.

That having been said, yeah I agree the ****ing ICR is there just to whale and try to open up the trade again. >.> But hey this isn't a forum its an Encyclopedia so what are you going to do.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.207.112 (talk) 02:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, then: just cite the fact that they don't produce any peer-reviewed research. This is a fact. The first comment is probably from someone involved with the industry; the broken English is suggestive. GeoffP1974 —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeoffP1974 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

yep, and the same guy has his hands all over the "Whaling in Japan" page. I'm slowly attempting to provide much-needed balance to these pages. Lets see how long the following bit lasts here on the ICR front..

Environmental groups dispute the Japanese claim of research "as a disguise for commercial whaling, which is banned."

(first added to Whale Wars page yesterday) Fhue (talk) 03:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Scare Quotes

I'm wondering if the quotation marks around "research" in places where it's not a direct quote are appropriate. If the claim is that it is a research organization - then it should be called that (sans quotes) until there is conclusive evidence that it is not. I completely agree that it's pretty clear that they are a front for a commercial whaling enterprise - but it's an encyclopedia, and "pretty clear" doesn't really cut it. Yes? I know such things are likely to be contentious for people who are passionate about these isuses - so I want to mention it here before I make the change so as to avoid an edit war. Lekoman (talk) 11:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Its not pretty clear though. Its clear, thus being "research". Link no longer works. Dvferret (talk) 04:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as a professional scientist, if ICR does not produce articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals, then it is not a "research" organization. Peer-reviewed publication is the only end-point to a legitimate scientifc endeavor and the primary measure of the quality of an institute's research. That's not my opinion, it is a fact based on scientific method. The fact that ICR refuses and/or fails to publish in bonafide peer-reviewed scientific journals constitutes "conclusive evidence" that ICR is not a legitimate research organization. Therefore, the quotations around "research" are appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.65.95 (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think it's a borderline case between scare quotes (which are discouraged in Wikipedia) and quotation marks. They call it "research", but we can't call it "research" because it's quite clearly not actually research. A solution might be to use the word only in slighly longer quotations as in "research into cetacean whatever"[ref to ICR source], to make it clear that the quotation marks mark quotations. Hans Adler 19:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)