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]

I do love horses, but whales are cool too! 2/7/2010 Horselover25

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]

Population discrepancy

the article on baffin bay claims a population of belugas of 120,000 there alone. i am not sufficiently knowledgable to correct it, but one of the articles is clearly wrong, and wp looks foolish in the process.Toyokuni3 (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CETA capitalisation discussion

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 08:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beluga whale → Beluga (whale) — This page was recently moved from there with the reason that typing the parenthesis was too much of a bother. This animal is by all accounts generally referred to as a "beluga", not as a "beluga whale". A redirect from "beluga whale" makes sense, though. --Swift (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The vernacular name of this species is "beluga", not "beluga whale". This may even be the primary topic for "beluga". Ucucha 11:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Qualifiers should only be used when absolutely necessary. I don't see the qualifier as necessary, especially given full text is possible. IMO, the WP:COMMONNAME is beluga whale, not beluga.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The IUCN and MSW 3, two of the most trustworthy sources on mammals, both give "beluga" as the vernacular name, not "beluga whale". Could you please cite sources to support your assertion that "beluga whale" is the common name for this animal? Ucucha 16:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I had said it was principally my personal opinion, but I'll respond nonetheless. "beluga whale" produced 871 sources hits in google books. I personally prefer google scholar hits because it presents some insight into the citation index. "beluga whale" produced 3,340 hits in google scholar and "beluga whales" produced an addition 4,200. Then there are organizations like the Alaska and Inuvialuit Beluga Whale Committee, aquariums [1], National Geographic[2], WWF[3] that may not be reliable sources onto themselves but a demonstration of colloquial usage when relating to a non-scientific organization. My point is the terms in widely used and its generally preferable to use a complete name that is unambiguous then to disambiguate (WP:NCDAB).--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think the fish and the things (such as the plane) named after these two necessitate the name Beluga (whale). —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-It is unneeded for the parenthases, as I stated in my Move Explaination. Kept as Beluga whale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belugaboy535136 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Necessity isn't the issue. See WP:COMMONNAME. --Swift (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree. given the request is to disambiguate, an assessment of necessity is entirely proper.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it is beluga whale, as contrasted with beluga caviar, and people actually use the term "beluga whale", so parenthesizing the whale portion is disadvantageous. 76.66.192.206 (talk) 05:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that "beluga whale" is more commonly used to refer to the animal than "beluga"? --Swift (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying your reasoning is faulty, since WP:NCDAB states that you should avoid using parenthetical disambiguation when you can get by with a more complete name; One reason for this is that someone would actually wikify beluga whale or type it into the search box, whereas beluga (whale) will need to be a piped link, and no one will type it into the search box, so serves no advantage, and is in fact disadvantageous. "Beluga whale" is fairly widely used term, and does not suffer from the parenthetical disuse fault that your suggestion does. 76.66.192.206 (talk) 05:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The editing guideline you refer to says that an equally clear and unambiguous title may be used. The guideline furthermore also suggests using parenthesis as well. These options are not ordered according to preference and therefore don't suggest one over the other. The example provided, the Delta rocket actually redirects to Delta (rocket family).

Your utility argument doesn't necessitate the beluga whale location, either. A redirect would accomplish the very same.

Finally (again); Are you saying that "beluga whale" is more commonly used to refer to the animal than "beluga"? --Swift (talk) 11:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swift, trust me. I've been to almost every aquarium that houses beluga whales, and they all say "The beluga whale...," not "The beluga..." So, thus, moving is opposed. Belugaboy535136 ^talk 12:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Ucucha noted to Labattblueboy, you need sources. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And for example, the article isn't Beluga (caviar) or Beluga (sturgeon). As I stated, no need for the parenthesis. Belugaboy535136 ^talk 13:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of "need". Please read WP:COMMONNAME. The food is at beluga caviar, the fish at beluga (sturgeon). Either could be disambiguated the other way, but we should follow vernacular use there as in here. --Swift (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Aquarium and Shedd Aquarium among others all use "beluga whale," not "beluga (whale)." I doubt many zoos & aquaria have ever heard of the sturgeon. --Belugaboy535136 ^contribs 00:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.