Talk:Beluga whale

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cetaceans, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CetaceansWikipedia:WikiProject CetaceansTemplate:WikiProject CetaceansCetaceans articles

Template:FAOL

Arctic B‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arctic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arctic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArcticWikipedia:WikiProject ArcticTemplate:WikiProject ArcticArctic articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada B‑class Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

On the top of this page...

I noted two problems with the Beluga article and I think someone is tampering with it. It states that belugas eat mainly human flesh - obviously ridiculous but I am not a marine biologist and don't want to replace one error with another.

It also states belugas reach sexual maturity in 8 days, 5 for females. Again obviously reidulous but should it be 8 years? I don't know what is correct.Fhdubois (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there is a message that says "See this article" with a ghost-link. This is ridiculous! 66.32.76.38 23:04, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by ghost-link? You mean the red link to the Beluga sturgeon? That is simply an article not yet written. If you know anything about that fish go ahead and write something there, and the ghost link will become a real link. andy 23:06, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Whale?

The article calls them whales several times, but the lead 'graph does not. If it's true, it should be in the lead; if not the body should be fixed. --Jerzy (t) 02:16, 2004 May 8 (UTC)

The short answer for they are a whale. Longer windedly - a whale is a cetacean that isn't a dolphin or a porpoise. If you check out our dolphin page you will see there are lots of usable definitions of a dolphin. The most natural one is "the family Delphinidae plus the river dolphins." Thus beluga is a whale. In practice however most people don't care to categorize it one way or the other; they just call it a beluga and be done with it. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:12, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures and naming

The picture part of the page seriously needs cleanup. Perhaps there should be a link to a beluga pictures gallery. It ought to be fixed. It looks ugly and not very encyclopedic. And the Naming "paragraph" is one sentence. I think someone ought to add etymology. I'll probably do that myself at some point; I know where the name came from. But it needs expanding.--Belugaperson 19:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added to the naming section a little bit, but I think that more information would be helpful. --Horatiohornblower 05:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

russian word?

Beluga - the word derives from the Russian beloye meaning white one. (from Introduction)
The name Beluga is derived from the Russian word belukha, meaning white (from naming)

I kinow that Russian is a complciated language and thus perhaps these statements are equally valid, however they appear contradictory and confusing. Can a consensus be reached? Perhaps by someone with a verifiable source? --Brideshead 14:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no contradiction here. Belukha (alternatively: beluga) is the Russian word for the animal itself (according to the Russian Wikipedia). It derives from the adjective belyy which means "white". I clarified that in the article. Kpalion 14:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taxidermy and Stuffing of the Beluga Whale

I'm assuming this used to be taxonomy, so I'm changing it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.23.77 (talk)

Gulfe of St. Lawrence

The Beluga whale is also foundin the Gulf of St. Lawrence in eastern Canada. It is considered an endangered population. These Beluga whales also wander in the Saguenay fjord. Maybe the map should be updated. Reference: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/species/species_belugaStLawrence_e.asp [ 207.134.187.165 18:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC) ][reply]

More on distribution

Belugas are relatively abundant throughout the Sea of Okhotsk. I added the info in the article, but it should also be reflected in the map. - Eliezg (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Captive Beluga Page

Is there a website about belugas in captivity? (ex: the living, deceased, and news about them...)

why does "Beluga" cover the mammal?

according to OED, the first (more prevalent) meaning of Beluga is " 1. A species of fish: ..."

shouldn't "Beluga" redirect to the sturgeon page then? Or at least Beluga should lead to disambig page, while this page should be renamed "Beluga whale"

Anatoly.bourov (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polar bears and stranded beluga

I believe that the paragraph marked "citation needed" regarding polar bears and captive belugas is referring to the Frozen Seas episode of The Blue Planet by the BBC. The program shows such a situation. --24.130.63.18 (talk) 04:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation Status

The Beluga's conservation staus, per IUCN (see Template:IUCN2008) is near threatened, not endangered. Why are some IPs changing the status to endangered? Rlendog (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that some subpopulations may be considered endangered but that does not constitute the species being endangered. The taxobox represents the conservation status of the entire species, which is near threatened.Rlendog (talk) 23:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Population, threats, and human interaction

The inclusion of Sarah Palin's opposition to the listing of the Cook Inlet population under the Endangered Species Act is relevant, well-cited and should remain. This wasn't a passing notion - the Palin administration submitted 95 pages of data and comments to keep the whales off the list, despite a drop in numbers from 1300 in the 1970s to about 375 currently.136.186.1.189 (talk) 03:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not relevant, excaept because she is running for VP. If she weren't, no one would think to put it there. So it's politics, not relevant. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that makes it not relevant how, exactly? Her opposition to this particular listing was certainly relevant to its delay. Unfortunately, politics can have considerable bearing on environmental issues but, that aside, the issue here is the particular listing of a particular animal, which Sarah Palin personally and politically (and unscientifically) opposed - her position is what gave her this power. I didn't place this information on account of the politics (which are actually irrelevant to me, as an outsider), but I question your removal of it.136.186.1.189 (talk) 04:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, it's to be removed because articles should remain at the unaltered state until a disagreement is resolved. I disagree with your edit. Second, naming Palin in the edit is the part that is most irrelevant. I'm no lover of Palin, but it is best to keep as much politics as we can out of biological articles. Please don't undo my revert. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I won't undo your revert, I think Palin's role truly crossed over from politics to natural sciences, at least in terms of its effects. The six month delay was purely at Palin's instigation and, had the non-listing been achieved, it would have been a triumph of political interest over natural science - Palin's denial of the crash in numbers, in the face of all scientific evidence to the contrary, could have been the death knell for this population. The only reason I'm not reinstating it is because she was ultimately defeated, even by her own party, on this issue.

In terms of the disagreement, it would have been good to bring this here first, rather than just reverting my first edit - I still don't consider the grounds were there for doing that, as this information is central to the articles cited.136.186.1.187 (talk) 05:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Interesting Article!

I very much enjoyed reading this article. Marine biology is a subject that I find very fascinating! -- Bill Sapperton —Preceding undated comment was added on 06:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Confusing reference to pathogens

The section on "Pathogens" contains this sentence:

Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae gram positive/variable bacilli, likely from contaminated fish in the diet, can endanger captive Belugas, causing anorexia, dermal plaques, and lesions.

I don't understand the first few words at all. The passage apparently refers to Gram staining of bacteria, but that's not explained to the reader. There's also no explanation of why this feature of the bacilli is of any importance in understanding the Beluga whale. I'm replacing that passage with a wikilink to Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae. Elaboration of this point can be made there if it's important. Goodguy2 (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]