Jump to content

Talk:Whale/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Whale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I've not seen them anywhere else — Preceding unsigned comment added by Not-bot (talk • contribs) 10:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit request, 26 Aug 2017

First paragraph: "comprise of" is bad grammar and should be replaced with "comprise".

Conservation section: as the article is to be kept in British English, "off of" should be replaced with "off". 2.24.119.54 (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Whale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2018

Change "Environmentalists speculate that advanced naval sonar endangers some whales." to "Scientific studies show that mid-range frequencies of sonar used by the U.S. Navy can have serious detrimental effects on whales and other marine species."

Reason for change: characterizing scientific findings as "speculation" on the part of environmentalists is simply wrong. Sources below: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-military-sonar-kill/ http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v562/p211-220 https://www.sciencealert.com/a-us-court-ruled-that-navy-sonar-harms-whales-and-dolphins https://www.wired.com/2016/07/sea-will-get-lot-quieter-without-navys-whale-killing-sonar/ Du.rodriguez (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Du.rodriguez: I've updated the section a bit and added some of those references. Thanks for noticing that! Rhinopias (talk) 04:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Course review

This article seems to be very straight forward and to the point. There are not any biased opinions and I thoroughly enjoyed how they linked the words that most people wouldn't know or understand the meaning of to the direct page that you can click on and find out the definition. All the citation links that I clicked on worked very easily and took me directly to the page. This article on whales is very direct and does not go off topic at all. I wouldn't change much about this page because they provide a lot of information on the whales such as senses, communication, and more. (AlisonZook25 (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)).

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2018

In paragraph four of Biology:Anatomy change "and the veins of the heart have been described as being "as thick as an iPhone 6 Plus is long"." to "and the walls of the arteries in the heart have been described as being "as thick as an iPhone 6 Plus is long"." This is what is truly being described in https://www.livescience.com/49795-strange-animal-hearts.html DavidPera (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done — IVORK Discuss 22:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2018

Deepak soni 123 (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

In Japan WHALE is now banned to eat and to prepare dishes like (sushi) Due to the reason is that whales are ENDANGERED species

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

"The obsolete 'whalefish' has a similar derivation, indicating a time when whales were thought to be fish."

It is not a matter of thinking they are fish, it is a matter of how you define "fish". In Moby-Dick, Melville clearly explains that while whales are mammals,the usage at that time, particularly in whaling communities, included them in "fish". This is not nonsense, because lampreys and hag fish are considered fish, even though they are even farther from modern fish biologically. David R. Ingham (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

w.o.e. … here is the Reverend Skeat's entry whale. which almost says that with some imagination on the part of the contributor, and the cross-ref fish "an animal that lives in water, and breathes through gills". Conclusive proof: olden days folks was dum. cygnis insignis 06:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Whales, and other dolphins

I added some other whales to the 'phylogeny' section earlier, removed now with the assertion killer whales are dolphins. Can this be phrased with verifiable nomenclature, the names to which they refer, just for the purposes of this discussion so there is no more fishy business? They are a delphinid species that happens to be called a whale, according to sources this is vague and malleable word, not a systematic arrangement? cygnis insignis 17:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

that about sums it up. The killer whale and others like it are discussed in the second paragraph of Etymology. I know dolphins are defined as the river dolphins and the oceanic dolphins, porpoises are actually a taxon, so a whale is any cetacean that is not any of those   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
This is structured as a biological article, not a etymological discussion. Seriously, this is on shaky ground, and you know how we ultimately verify what any of the myriad of common names refer to, and that is one of the more common names like cetacea, that people across the planet generally agree on. No source directly says what that phylogeny section asserts, it looks like a prank on a biology departments notice board to remind students why everyone, not just specialists, uses systematic names to communicate meaningfully. "Blackfish", tell me about that citation, I cannot even find an abstract and the only citation to it is from a Fisheries publication, a japanese fisheries industry journal, a macabre source for systematic splitting of whales and dolphins. — cygnis insignis 18:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Killer whales are whales. There's an astonishingly popular factoid that "killer whales are actually dolphins". I just can not wrap my head around that position. It has a veneer of science to it, but if the vernacular name dolphin is being mapped to a clade or taxon, it still leaves "toothed whales" as a paraphyletic group (and I've never seen any argument that some toothed whales aren't actually "whales"). And what's wrong with calling some members of Delphinidae whales? That it leaves dolphins as a paraphyletic group? I'm not particularly bothered by paraphyletic common names, but I can't see any argument aside from paraphyly that calling killer whales "whales" is WRONG.
This has come up repeatedly on the killer whale talk page, and there's even a separate subpage for it: Talk:Killer whale/Is it a dolphin, a whale, both?!. Google gives many "killer whales are actually dolphins', but this is entirely wrong-headed. Whale, dolphin and porpoise are English words that long predate Linnean taxonomy (let alone cladistics). Whale refers to large cetaceans, dolphin and porpoise refer to smaller cetaceans. Killer whales are much larger than the other members of their family. Pilot whales are fairly small, but there's much less of a declare them "actually dolphins", even though that would be more in-line with traditional English definitions of whales and dolphins, as well as being in line with whatever twisted concept of monophyly is favored by the "actually dolphins" camp. Plantdrew (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
”Dolphin” is Delphinidae (which killer whale is a part of) and the river dolphins, so that’s the whole “killer whales are actually dolphins” thing. “Whale” and “dolphin” are not taxons, most of the taxonomy part came from the GA review I think (I don’t remember), they’re just arbitrary names that are really common in English (like “jellyfish”), but “toothed whale” is actually taxon   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
But yeah I see what you’re saying. Should we take out Taxonomy, Biology, and Ecology and leave that discussion on Cetacea?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
[ec2]And distribution and description, there is no direct source for characteristics of elusively defined organisms.
Put simply: 'Toothed whale' is a common name that refers to a taxon, it is not a taxon per se, this point needs to be understood, it doesn't mean anything without reference to some sort of agreed and universal description and is a licensed premise in communication. I'm not an educator, we are not educators or student or authors, there are facts and we add those. Pick up three decent books on plants or animals, there will be an explanations of what is going on with names and taxonomy and why there is verifiable name and another the author has selected to accompany it.
[ec] Because then the 'mapping' would be to articles founded on everything we know after Linnaeus, with reference, where possible, to anything before. Articles at the verifiable name will cause unicorns to die, grandmothers to weep, and children in fundamentalist households will be corrupted, but my hands are tied as there is npov to consider. Another elephantine grab-bag of other content that the assemblers have not bothered to verified (FAR, 2015), and posturing as properly sourced content on a defined scope (which hinged in part on an SAI: Blackfish. I suppose someone is scurrying off to google up some mention of that allegedly 'commonly used' name, indulging this sort of thing is unhelpful to all concerned on a high traffic article. The simple solution being somehow abhorrent to some, tradition or something[?], the answer is to show that no one is silly enough to base a taxonomy on the selective use of common names, censoring any mention of others and creating sections wriggling with OR to navigate that dubious course. cygnis insignis 20:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Well toothed whale is a taxon like bat is a taxon or elephant or giraffe or anything else with a common name. As for the second part, I don’t know what’s going on beneath the purple prose. Are you calling for taking out the sections I’ve mentioned above (I remember reading a discussion sequestering anatomy discussion to Cetacea and leaving cultural references and etymology here) or are you calling for deletion?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
The former, not delete. Not an educator, but here I am unmuddling whatever blather someone has convinced users of with the para-phylo-geno-crypto-angloistic taxonomies (in culture), so please pardon my frustration and purple prose.
A common name is not a systematic name, whale, dolphin, fish, banana, and elephant are not taxons in a systematic taxonomy. Correct: Y/N?
A systematic name and a common name should be synonymous (there’s no difference between “Chiroptera” and its colloquialism “Bat” as both refer to the same group of creatures), so “bat” and “elephant” are indeed taxons. The only problem is when multiple creatures share a common name, then if you want a specific discussion of just one, you use the systematic name   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Did you pick up the three closest texts and see what they say about the difference?
between whales and dolphins?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
No. the difference between a common name and the taxons that they surely use. cygnis insignis 06:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Blackfish, please respond to the query on verification of that source's reliability and notability.cygnis insignis 23:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I can’t find an online copy but I see a lot of other sources use that as a citation (like this and this), but then I found this that specifically says “Peponocephala electra [melon-headed whale] is a small ‘blackfish,’ an informal term for the group that also includes killer (Orcinus orca), pilot (Globicephala), false killer, and pygmy killer whales”   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
This definition is crucial to the assertions you make, "collectively known as blackfish", what did the article say about this group? Did you read it to verify that blackfish is a meaningful term, or just search on blackfish and find that word (in quotes) in the title of a paper you have not read? Please review that FAR and the concerns that caused the articles withdrawal from nomination,. One reviewer said he would have failed at this at GA, some years ago now. You say that common name and systematic should be synonymous, that is not how it works, even when some committee has attempted to do that. Others are perfectly entitled to disagree with that arrangement, but not with the systematic name without extensive proof that is not able to be disputed. People can refer to Cetacea via solid cross referencing, this profound interconnection of sources is the remarkable bit I hope you appreciate out of this. Common names only have conditional meaning for the purposes of that single source, and the value is zilch without the interconnection of sources that regard an informal name as merely incidental. cygnis insignis 06:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay well whatever. The question that matters is what should we do about this article? Should we take out the Taxonomy, Biology, and Ecology sections?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
My preference is to see content that is verified placed in appropriate sections of articles on the organism. Summarising whales, dolphins, porpoises and so on at Cetacea is big challenge, one that you are already familiar with and active. "There is no such thing as waste, just stuff in the wrong place", to quote a song I heard the other day. cygnis insignis 06:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Sigh, an RfC or five good editors to sort this out. I will commit to being the fifth best of those to assist in verifying and merging out to articles, and seeing how what remains can function as an article, preferring that to any misspent focus of editors making a noisy discussion that is better directed to other concerns (my tracts of expository being a good example of noise vs edits today). If there is only local consensus then the activity in mainspace is more fun and efficient, for me anyways, and the result will speak for itself before long. People will wonder why wasn't done before. cygnis insignis 09:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC) added/edited 10:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree whale and cetacea should be merged (dolphins are whales, it seems to be a quirk in the English language to somehow consider them distinct), but I think dolphin could be a separate article, as it is pretty clear what it refers to. For example, the Danish language Wikipedia "hvaler" (whales) links to the English Cetacea article, not to whales, which should show how redundant it seems to keep them separate (for non-anglophones at least). FunkMonk (talk) 11:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
No pressure, really, only if you feel inclined to slot it in as side-project in your already busy schedule, but could I start a list like the one that follows and put you as the first to answer the [whale noises] call? — cygnis insignis 12:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  1. @FunkMonk:?
  2. @Jens Lallensack:?
  3. tba
  4. tba
  5. cygnis insignis
I can't say I'm that well-versed in whale taxonomy, so not sure about being first. But we might want to start a discussion at the mammal project to get more views. FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Neither am I, well read on Cetacea, but what I know is fascinating and verifiable. Aligning to any accepted taxonomy is easy, the fiddly bit is dealing with aligning that content to what is actually in the source. If people are actively contributing and rechecking in a concerted effort to best practices, the need for broader input might only be, "look at this and tell how it is not a solution". cygnis insignis 14:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
English is weird, if I say “whale” no one will think of a bottlenose dolphin, and if I say “dolphin” no one will think of a sperm whale, so the two are different concepts altogether, though not in any way a taxonomic group. However, if I say “whale” or “dolphin,” someone could think “orca” for either   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Blackfish

  • The name of a publication at the vancouver aquarium, The Blackfish Sounder
  • A term used in title used the title of an entry in Leatherwood (ed.) Cetaceans and cetacean research in the Indian Ocean Sanctuary. by Leatherwood, et al, 'Records of the "blackfish" (killer, false killer, pilot, pygmy killer, and melon-headed whales) in the Indian Ocean Sanctuary, 1772-1976' cited at cascadiaresearch, who I see using the tern elsewhere.
  • Talk:Killer_whale/Archive_4#Uncommon_Names, raised in 2009
  • A movie released in 2013.
  • A reference to subfamily Globicephalinae

I disassembled the whale section of the SIA (set article index) at Blackfish, and circular refs to that in the article respective articles. The IUCN may have included the term 'slender blackfish' once, but not currently seen at that the redlist site. WoRMS has included an entry of data that uses the same slender blackfish, but the editor of the item does not give a source. The curious could write and ask that prof, where does this term arise? cygnis insignis 06:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

the term is also defined here   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Which gave me a lead for this nugget:

… stranding of electra dolphins at Crowdy Heads, about 200 miles north of Sydney in August 1958. This stranding was reported briefly as a school of blackfish by a local newspaper some days after the event.[1]

1970, with a ref to a newspaper report, 1958. I am fond of tracking common names, and fascinating things I find along the way, and this is a wriggly path. A search of BHL would be fruitful. cygnis insignis 16:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth this recent article on melon-headed whales makes extensive use of the name blackfish and uses it as a common name for the subfamily Globicephalinae "... the cetacean subfamily Globicephalinae, commonly referred to as ‘blackfish,’ is comprised of several species of large, dark-colored dolphins, including killer whales ..." and "Melon-headed whales ... are poorly known members of the blackfish subfamily". You do have to wonder if they have been influenced by the film, elevating an occasional colloquial name into a common name.   Jts1882 | talk  18:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Now that I am reminded of it, I'm wondering the same thing. cygnis insignis 00:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Dawbin, W H; Noble, B A; Fraser, F C (1970). "Observations on the electra dolphin Peponocephala electra". Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History). 20: 173–201. doi:10.5962/bhl.part.2255. ISSN 0007-1498.

Dead whales have rights in Hawaii

According to the far-left extremist Democrat-controlled government of Hawaii, dead whales have "rights" and it is illegal to take their teeth or even to touch them: https://www.foxnews.com/science/hawaii-swimmers-stealing-dead-whales-teeth-climbing-on-body-warned-to-stay-away-as-dozens-of-sharks-swarm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.203.29.65 (talk) 12:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

that sounds like the Marine Mammal Protection Act which bars trade of any marine mammal parts (and that includes teeth)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2019

Change whæl to hwæl - In the etymology section, the Old English word for whale has been spelt incorrectly. It is shown as whæl, and it should be hwæl - see the Old English dictionary entry for hwæl at: http://bosworth.ff.cuni.cz/020037 Rickguy2906 (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Change made and reference added. The reference already in the article gave that spelling as well, so there is no conflict between sources.   Jts1882 | talk  07:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

"Killer whale"

The phrase 'killer whale' in the second paragraph of the Etymology and definitions' part should be changed to 'whale killer'

The whole point was that the Spanish/Portuguese sailors who named it, named it 'killer whale' which translates to 'whale killer' (killer of whales). The English mistranslated it to mean killer whale, keeping the original word order but ignoring the context. Hence the common misconception of the orca being a whale, not a dolphin

Saoirserose (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't "whale killer" be "mata ballenas"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Actually the book offers that as an interpretation, not a firm conclusion; see here. (And dolphins are whales, FWIW.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Diverged 40 million years ago or 55 million?

Page says "having diverged about 40 million years ago" but the hippopotamus page says they diverged 55 million years ago. Neither has citation. Zobdos (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit protection

I am able to see how the edit protection is on Pogchaml (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

"Cryptic cetaceans" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Cryptic cetaceans and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 29#Cryptic cetaceans until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

"For example, Herman Melville's Moby Dick features a "great white whale" as the main antagonist for Ahab, who eventually is killed by it." -- Thank you very much for this spoiler. I'm currently reading the book and just wanted to get some information about whales. Please remove the sentence after the comma. Voitcus (talk) 08:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done - UtherSRG (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Issue with entry misworded.

They are an informal grouping within the infraorder Cetacea, which usually excludes dolphins and porpoises.

Should be includes not excludes. 68.225.196.201 (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

No. "Whale", as an informal term, doesn't include dolphins and porpoises. - UtherSRG (talk)

Cetacean threats article

It has come to my attention that though cetacean articles mention the threats to cetaceans it doesn’t feel like enough. I think that we should make a article cetacean threats (name should be changed) to further describe the threats to cetaceans. I am no expert on this topic so sorry if this is already covered. (I don’t know anything) InfernaIBaze (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Probably the thing to do is to expand the info on this article, by gathering info from various cetacean articles. If the section gets large enough, then spawn it off to its own section and summarize it here. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Good idea, I can start gathering some information from other articles right now if that would be fine. Also sorry the reply is really late I’m in Japan right now so the time zones are a little messed up. InfernaIBaze (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
We can look at the whole of the status section here, the threats section here, the threats section here and the sub articles for the three articles as well as the whale sub articles. Sorry I don’t know how to link to specific parts of the article. InfernaIBaze (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Also, should we rename the relationship with humans section to just “Threats” in general? InfernaIBaze (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Never mind now that I looked at it that’s a bad idea, but we do need to move the “whaling” and “other threats” sections to a different (new) part of the article InfernaIBaze (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
There is also this article we could look at. If we are going to take from this article it might be good to suggest a merge, but that’s farther down the line from now. InfernaIBaze (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Future me here, I’ve looked at all the talk archives (BRIEFLY) for this article, the Cetacea article, the Dolphin article, and the porpoise article. I’ll go back right now to look in more detail. InfernaIBaze (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Update: I have to do other things but I think it’s safe to say there is nothing too important. InfernaIBaze (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
@UtherSRG are you there? InfernaIBaze (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm around, but this is not high priority for me. UtherSRG (talk) 11:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Oh all right sorry I haven’t been getting around @UtherSRG InfernaIBaze (talk) 02:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Evolution

Can you suggest a reliable source for study of detailed evolution of whales? 117.197.254.75 (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Try the references at cetacean evolution or ask at the WP:Reference Desk - UtherSRG (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

how many flavors are of whales

l' 212.55.60.18 (talk) 10:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Whale/Archive_4&oldid=1208902888"