Talk:North Atlantic right whale
|WikiProject Cetaceans||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject United States / Massachusetts / Cape Cod and the Islands||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Mammals||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
Popular conceptions of Basque whaling history
Ok, may I please finally put this notion to rest. The Basques did not deplete the stock(s) of right whales in the Bay of Biscay and then go searching the North Atlantic for new whaling grounds. At the same time as they were sailing to Terranova (Newfoundland and Labrador), Spitsbergen, Iceland, Brazil, and Northern Norway in the 16th and 17th centuries there was still a profitable winter fishery off the coast of northern Spain. It wasn't until after these other areas had been visited that whaling in the Bay of Biscay began to decline. Jonas Poole (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I received a privately-communicated editing challenge that I think belongs here in Talk for the good of the Article. SaberToothWhale wrote to me "Hi. Could you provide a scientific paper that says whaling wasn't the cause of the current low numbers in the North Atlantic? The news article you cited wasn't on the topic at hand and wasn't supported by any evidence. I understood it that the above claim only referred to whaling in the western North Atlantic, not the entire ocean basin. If you can't provide said reference, I will have to revert your edit. Good day." Among other issues I have with that approach is the attempt to frame the issue as whether I can produce "a scientific paper" and that the consequence of any failure woud be to "revert" my edit. Proper WP approach would have been to first acknowledge that the Environment Editor of the BBC (the author and publisher of my source) is a "credible source" on a relevant issue; and that the burden of proof re any reversion lies with the person seeking to revert. SaberToothWhale does not cite or provide any basis for why my edit contravenes WP policy. In my own editing discussions, I seek to engage any editor in a discussion to see whether we can arrive at Article text that presents properly any relevant, credible-source information. I some editor thinks that the word "western" ought be added to the text "Atlantic Ocean" then WP:BeBold and do it. Or engage in cooperative efforts to otherwise improve the Article. To further that end, I point out that cited content need not be flagged by the title of a source and that the source need not itself cite its "evidence". I suggest that the article can be improved by those with the subject matter skills to know what a better source might be. Let's try that rather than have an edit war based on personal policies rather than WP policies.SteveO1951 (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Rather than discuss here, or follow WP editing guidelines, SaberToothWhale simply deleted my addition, stating in his/her comment "source provided no evidence for statement, which only applied to certain time period (16th century) in certain region." That a credible source (BBC) did not specify the source of the "recent research" is not basis for removal under WP policies WP:RS. If an editor wishes to correct/add detail that he thinks appropriate then let that editor do so. WP policies require Talk and attempt to improve the Article, not deletion.SteveO1951 (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I had done some copy edit. I appreciate that SaberToothWhale has replaced that by discovering the important scientific study and adding to the Article a better statement of the matter and a direct reference.SteveO1951 (talk) 05:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure when the following was inserted rather randomly into the lead:
- The North Alantic Right Whale are endangered due to their swimming course. When they regulary travel through a course, they pass the U.S.Navy Military Sonar training. Sonar Training is a device used to track war submarines underwater. When the waves from the Sonar activates, the waves may deafen North Alantic Right Whales and other animals eardrums. The other animals consist of dolphins, belugas, and other marine animals. Their hearing loss can result in getting hit by a ship due to their lack of attention or hearing.If you want more info on how to help these whales, please go to http://www.nrdc.org/action
But it is obviously inappropriate and I removed it. Some of this information might be included in a "Current status/threats" section further down, but only if it is rewritten and sourced reliably. Best, Eliezg (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, studies are still inconclusive regarding the effects of Military Sonar. The data is not consistant and new studies need to be carried out in order to make a correct finding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
NOAA hears North Alantic Right Whales.
Someone should make use of the following news about North Atlantic Right Whales:
NOAA (2009-05-21). "NOAA Expedition Hears Endangered North Atlantic Right Whales off Greenland". National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrration. Retrieved 2009-05-21.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't this page be at North Atlantic Right Whale according to the project page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cetaceans, capital initial letters are agreed upon by consensus. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cetaceans#Capitalisation. Current consensus is to use sentence casing as is overwhelmingly common in relevant literature. --Swift (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
|The North Atlantic right whale article is part of the Cetaceans WikiProject. A discussion on the capitalisation of common names of cetaceans is taking place and your input is appreciated.
Please see the the project talk page for the full rationale and comments.
Weight-to-length ratio of largest recorded specimen suspicious.
"'Adult right whales average 45–55 feet (14–17 m) in length and weigh up to seventy tons (63,500 kg);
the largest measured specimens have been 60 feet (18 m) long and 117 tons (106,000 kg).'"
If line 1 is correct, Taking the upper average length of 55 feet (17 m) and assuming that would be 70 tons (63.5 metric tons),
then: 60 feet divided by 55 feet = 1.091 1.091 cubed = 1.299 1.299 x 63.5 metric tons = 82.5 metric tons
In short, a 60 foot (18m) individual with the same weight-to length ratio as the upper average should weigh 90.75 tons (82.5 metric tons)
On the other hand, if line 2 is correct, then: 55 feet divided by 60 feet = .917 .917 cubed = .771 .771 X 106 metric tons = 81.75 metric tons
IE: a 55 foot individual with the same weight-to-length ratio as the largest specimen should weigh 90 tons (81.75 metric tons, not 70 tons (63.5 metric tons) Jdaniel314 (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdaniel314 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I feel this should be included in the wikipedia entry for this mammal:
Feb 17 - In response to the efforts of conservation and wildlife protection groups, the National Marine Fisheries Service proposed to protect 39,655 square miles as critical habitat for North Atlantic right whales. Only about 450 of the critically endangered whales exist today, and without additional protections the species faces a serious risk of extinction.