Talk:The Cove (film)
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Cove (film) article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Not part of Japan's culture
- 2 Synopsis POV
- 3 Intro / focus
- 4 Mercury Levels Study
- 5 2,300 Dolphins
- 6 Tokyo Film Festival
- 7 Numbers
- 8 Oscar nomination, other awards
- 9 Mercury levels?
- 10 Academy Awards
- 11 Cast
- 12 Japanese Privacy Laws
- 13 Production
- 14 Reviews to incorporate into the prose of article
- 15 Coordinate error
- 16 Shortened tittie magazine reference
- 17 What impact has this film made?
- 18 File:RicOBarryJun09.jpg Nominated for Deletion
- 19 Classification as Mondo.
Not part of Japan's culture
As of writing this, the article's intro uses the phrase "Japan's dolphin hunting culture".
The capture and slaughter which occurs at the cove is carried out by a very small group of profiteers. There is not a large enough participation or approval from the people of Japan to call this "Japan's dolphin hunting culture". Prior to the film's release, the vast majority of Japan (including much of the population of Taji) didn't even know this capture and slaughter of dolphins was taking place. It's inaccurate and inappropriate to call this capture and slaughter "Japan's dolphin hunting culture". --Sodiiro (talk) 07:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree completely. I have changed "questions Japan's dolphin hunting culture" to "questions dolphin hunting practices in Taji, Japan". I believe this resolves the issue stated above without a downside, however I appreciate further feedback and edits if there is something missed. Jaydubya93 (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- More importantly, the text had been lifted verbatim from the official website, so I have removed it together with the self-congratulatory reviews. --DAJF (talk) 04:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
there is plenty of talk on imdb that the killings were staged by the film crew and that they distorted the facts. any information on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- I came here specifically for information on this, which I also read on IMDB. Anyone know the ligitemacy of these fraud claims? --22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think that documentary commits any fraud, that killings where photographed and recorded some times before the documentary and are referenced in a wide number of newspapers. If isn't public more videos about that issue is because the Taiji people doesn't let tourist and journalist take images. I think that recording that isn't legal (the same that occurs about the seal hunting in Canada). In any case, that discussion page is for discus about the article no about the issue of the article. Akhran (talk) 07:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I have been to Taiji, and I can guarantee you that the film crew did not stage the video footage! It is difficult to film the killings, but you can go to the beach next to the cove where the dolphins and whales are kept before slaughter. The fishermen don't like videos to be taken, but it is not illegal. (Thinkpeace (talk) 06:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC))
Intro / focus
The "clumsy" (not inaccurate, but not very kind;) introduction that was made less clumsy was:
- The Cove' is a 2009 film that details Ric O'Barry's efforts to document the annual killing of more than 2,500 dolphins in a National Park at Taiji, Wakayama in Japan.
The new version was:
- The Cove is a 2009 documentary film which documents the annual killing of more than 2,500 dolphins in a National Park at Taiji, Wakayama in Japan, and features activist Ric O'Barry.
While the flow may be "improved" per the edit summary, the introduction is not improved. It is misleading to say that the documentary is about the killing and about O'Barry. Rather, the film is about O'Barry's (successful) efforts to document the killing—a particularly important distinction as O'Barry is neither the director nor the producer of the film.
Mercury Levels Study
There is a reference to "a recent study" which says dolphin meat has 5 times the allowable level of mercury. Does anyone have the reference for this study? Reference source 17 does not have any info on such a study.
- Hey, don't forget to sing your post. This article claims of mercury levels 9000 x's (lol): here NoFlyingCars (talk) 10:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe it did, but that was either a misunderstanding of the figures published (and reliably sourced) elsewhere, or intentional distortion of the figures by the film makers. The estimates for the number of dolphins killed annually at Taiji in recent years vary from around 1,600 (official Japanese Fisheries Research Agency estimate) to 2,300 (estimated by Ric O'Barry of the OPS) or 2,500 (Japan Times film review). The figure of 23,000 dolphins killed per year is one estimate (by the OPS) for the whole of Japan - not just Taiji. The official estimate for 2007 published by the Japanese Fisheries Research Agency is 13,000, which differs somewhat, but is still at least in the same order of magnitude. --DAJF (talk) 10:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, you're correct. The 23k is for all of Japan, and I believe included whales killed, as well. They have a huge hunting season where most of the dolphins are killed in the waters between NE Japan and the Bering Sea. NoFlyingCars (talk) 10:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Both 2,300 and 23,000 appear to be bogus figures made up by environmentalists for shock effect. If you want to report those numbers I suggest you do it as a "According to [insert environmental blog here] xxx number of dolphins are killed every year". The factual 2007 data straight from Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) for both Taiji and Japan can be found here. http://www.jfa.maff.go.jp/j/whale/w_document/pdf/h19_progress_report.pdf You can find these yearly reports going all the way back to 2000. I counted 1569 in Taiji and 13080 for all of Japan in 2007. Not that we'd want to use hard factual data. It's far easier to just run with the rampant speculation that nobody bothers to explain or justify but also suit our agendas, right guys?126.96.36.199 (talk) 06:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
188.8.131.52 the Wikipedia is available for editing by anyone. If you see a mistake, please correct it and list your updates on the talk page. That would help our agenda of creating an online open-source encyclopedia. Jaydubya93 (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Tokyo Film Festival
The source for this part appears to be dead. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/16/AR2009091600372.html Somebody also added in that it was sold out. Could somebody get a new source to support this part.184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the 2,300 / 23,000 / any number from the lede sentence. The discussion about numbers does not seem to be an important part of the summary, and given that it is something that is disputed, and the dispute is relatively nuanced, it seems that it should be covered in its own section. More of the information in the lede should also be moved there, but for now, at least the very first part seems less confusing, more relevant for someone who wants to know about the film, and less prone to edit warring. Anyone? Bongomatic 02:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- So you don't think it's relevant that the film lied about these numbers? Seems like somebody is trying to cover their bases to me220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Whether or not the film lied, the numbers are relevant. Just not in the lede. If there is a controversy about the numbers, then the lede can mention the controversy. But going into detail is not appropriate there. Bongomatic 17:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Privet Organizations and Government Declarations Related
Nevertheless, it is always important to remember that some of these animals, (the ones that are not cruelly stabbed to death), are captured alive, to be sold to existent buyers around the world, legally, but also probably illegally through the very sophisticated and efficient black market.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afa86 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Oscar nomination, other awards
I have deleted the majority of the awards, as they are not terribly notable in the context of the more major ones won. I have also re-added the Oscar nomination, as that is incredibly relevant even if it doesn't win. Bongomatic 01:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- OK, but we really need to add a reference source for completeness. --DAJF (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
People may have different opinions about what awards are relevant. Critics awards are important in relation to the Oscars, but the average viewer may care more about audience awards from festivals. In that way, it makes more sense to have a complete list. It may be best to have a list of notable awards, i.e. Sundance, etc, and then a separate list below for others. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I have to ask: does this subject warrant its own entire section? I can understand a brief mention in the article, but why is it given such prominence? It's almost completely unrelated to the film.--22.214.171.124 (talk) 07:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Moreover, the title of the section ("Impact") implies that the film was somehow responsible for the concern over mercury levels and the removal of dolphin meat from the school lunch in Taiji, whereas the actual text gives no clear cause-and-effect relationship between this event and the film. It only states that one came chronologically after the other. Also, everything about the Taiji city council and school lunches is uncited. Techgeist (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree. The issue, while perhaps important is totally unrelated to the film (despite an attempt to link it to the main subject), and therefore doesn't belong in THIS article --gejyspa (talk) 11:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Per the concerns above, I have removed everything from the article that isn't directly related to the film. If someone wants to restore the material, I would suggest starting a new article specifically about the topic of mercury poisoning in Japan rather than adding it back here. This article is about the movie, not a general discussion forum for the issues raised in the movie. Kaldari (talk) 05:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
During the week before the Academy Awards, the filmmakers gathered in LA to bust a popular sushi restaurant, The Hump, for selling whale sushi, which is illegal. Should this be added to the Aftermath section? The source is The New York Times. Rosestiles (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)RoseStiles
- I wouldn't think this is an aftermath of the film. It has no direct connection to the events of the film. SpigotMap 18:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- It was because of the Academy Awards ceremony that they were in LA and decided to do the bust. Rosestiles (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)RoseStiles
- If you can provide a source that says the bust was a direct result of the film makers being in LA I would say add it. The stories I looked at only mentioned that the "Award winning film makers sparked the investigation", not that the fact that they were in LA caused them to conspire to bust the place. They are known animal activists so I would say that this is just another victory for them, however not related to the film. SpigotMap 21:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- It was because of the Academy Awards ceremony that they were in LA and decided to do the bust. Rosestiles (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)RoseStiles
I deleted references in the cast that stated the cast member played themselves. Being as this is a documentary and they are all playing themselves, I believe that information is fairly obvious. Drazyr (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Japanese Privacy Laws
The article says, "Attempts to view or film the dolphin culling in the cove are physically blocked by local volunteers who treat the visitors with open intimidation, derision, and anger. " Which makes it sound like the local volunteers were acting incorrectly. No mention is made however of the fact that, under Japanese law, it is illegal to film people without their consent, even in a public place. There are exceptions: Media outlets, and (I have no doubt) filming people engaged in illegal activity. While the producers of the Cove might claim that they were both a media outlet and filming others in the pursuit of an if not illlegal, reprimandable activity. From a Japanese point of view however, the producers may not be thought of as being sufficiently balanced as to warrant the lable of media outlet and were in any case not registered as such under Japanese law. And of course, the volunteers in the film at least, and Japanese law too, does not see the actions of the locals as in any way illegal. At it stands it sounds as though the local volunteers were belligerent, when they were upholding their legal rights. In the US, where animals are killed in buildings which are private property, the owners of such private property are within their rights to prevent the filming of the slaughter that goes on inside. In Japan, where animals are hunted and slaughtered out doors, the huntsmen are within their rights to prevent filming of their activities. Perhaps all animal slaughterers should have no privacy? As it stands, however, animal slaughterers in Japan and the US are afforded the right of privacy, a right which the makers of the Cove chose to ignore, to the *legally justified* "derision and anger" of local volunteers. It seems unfair to me that no mention is made of the illegality of the filming of The Cove, with the article making out that the fishermen are just bullies (derisive, angry, intimidators) --Timtak (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree with your take on it. If the only reason the fishermen were trying to block pictures and video from being taken was to protect their privacy, they could have asked the police to come and order the activists to desist. Also, the fishermen were operating in a public area surrounded by a public park, and so were breaking the law by trying to deny free access to the area. It is not "private space" as the fishermen tried to claim. Perhaps that is why the police would not block the activists? Also, I could understand much of what the locals were yelling at the activists in Japanese (which the film did not translate), and I think intimidation, derision, and anger are appropriate descriptions for what they were saying. Cla68 (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Entering parks is legal, but filming other people therein is not. Their space, the space in which they inhabit, is private in so far as it is illegal to film it. Did the fishermen not ask the police for help? Can a village bobby block a load of guys with hidden cameras? I think that "intimidation, derision, and anger" are appropriate to a point, but the only tell half the story in a piece that is meant to be fair. If it were an article about an attempted rape say, where the would be victim said, "Come any closer and I will kick your digusting face into next week," then the victim's behaviour could be described as "intimidation, derision, and anger" but forgetting context, this description becomes very unbalanced. The fishermen were behaving legally, while film makers were manefestly breaking the law, showing no shame at all. The fishermen's intimidation, derision and anger were in that context. To remove the context makes for a biased article.
- Reliable sources, not editors' opinions, are actually what's called for in determining what information should be included in the articles. Bongomatic 02:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The production section seems suspiciously full of spurious claims: "The film crews used insulting English words and gestures that locals were able to understand, threw pebbles at locals, put a handy video coder directly on locals face, told locals that Japanese penises were the smallest in the world. When the locals became angry, the film crews fell down and started to cry in pain". The reference does not link to any article although the text is in Japanese so I cannot verify it.
- We need to ask someone at the ProjectJapan talk page to check it. I don't have time right now but if you'd like to, feel free. If you don't, I'll try to post there sometime this weekend or early next week. Cla68 (talk) 08:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Done - not sure of protocol but I've asked nicely any way. Will check back later to see if there's an update. Thanks for advice. YLGP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 09:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Reviews to incorporate into the prose of article
I have removed the following reviews from the external links section:
- The Cove: A film review
- The Cove: Learn More
- Video: Director Louie Psihoyos discusses 'The Cove' Asia Society, New York, March 9, 2010
- Bright Lights Film Journal Review
- Dolphin hunting exact location on BlooSee
- Filmmakers, Activists Try to Save Dolphins from Slaughter in Oscar-Winning Doc The Cove - video report by Democracy Now!
These should be incorporated into the "Reception" section as references in the prose describing the critical reception of the film. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 08:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
The following coordinate fixes are need for
- Declined, coordinates are correct, but I'm confused about the reference to mums. Here in Texas we have elaborate homecoming mums, elaborate corsages built around chrysanthemums. Chrysanthemums are, in turn, the Imperial Seal of Japan and, by extension, the national emblem of Japan itself, but the coordinates are correct for both the location where the documentary was shot and for Japan, in general, so I suppose that they are correct for mums, too. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Shortened tittie magazine reference
I shortened the material taken from the soft porn tittie magazine called "Weekly Playboy". Further more, the title approximately translates as "Eco-terrorists of deceptive attack movie" and so it is not serious.
I doubt that Close-up Gendai is really a reliable source either. It is a social affairs programme going out around dinner time. It can be OK something but it tends to be a bit left wing and populist. I don't think it is that serious.
I looked into this further and Psihoyos actually says he met Nakamae on the way to Santiago. The IWC meeting in Santiago was in 2008. The 2007 meeting was in Anchorage, so I am removing additional errors.
What impact has this film made?
My first question after watching this documentary was--has anything changed since the film was released? Has it made a difference? Could someone start a section on that in this article? 188.8.131.52 (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
File:RicOBarryJun09.jpg Nominated for Deletion
|An image used in this article, File:RicOBarryJun09.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:RicOBarryJun09.jpg)
Classification as Mondo.
This does fit Wikipedia's own definition of the term but edits to reflect this have repeatedly been reverted. Perhaps something that reflected that it is a documentary of this type such as "The Cove is a 2009 mondo documentary" or similar that reflects the sub genre? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Do you have wp:RS describing The Cove as a "Mondo film"? That is essentially what would be needed here. RS would be Wikipedia policy on the matter. Note: Self-published media including blogs, twitter, IMDB is essentially a wiki, so those would be out per WP:SELFPUBLISH. Some blogs where the blogger is clearly established as a reliable source might be OK, but would need to be scrutinized. If there is one or a few RS which say "Mondo" and many others that contradict, that should be reflected in any edits. Jim1138 (talk) 05:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Looking at other films I notice the genre descriptions aren't generally cited. In these cases a link to the sub genre (as with my edit) is the convention. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eraserhead Something such as EraserHead can be classified as both horror and more specifically body horror. In such a case both are correct because one is a sub genre of the other so it wouldn't be right to say it being more commonly said to be horror is a contradiction of its classification as body horror the two should be weighed against each other as you suggest. Discussing the correctness of a classification should surely be relevant in cases such as this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eraserhead#Not_really_a_surrealist_film To this end I've started a discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mondo_film#The_Cove.3F 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Dolphins slaughtered for human consumption in Perú, estimates that illegal hunting of dolphins for human consumption kills at least 1000 dolphins per year along the Peruvian coast.
- Greenpeace Foundation Campaigns, originally helped define the Japan dolphin-saving issue for the world. Now we are working to end "drive kills" and "harpoon fisheries". We're also investigating to expose and end the growing practice of selling dolphin as "whale meat", which defrauds the Japanese consumer, creates a lucrative black market, and encourages international trade in dead dolphins.