Jump to content

Talk:Military marine mammal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Patriotic Dophin Hunger Strikes

[edit]

"A counter-claim suggests that dolphins died patriotically after going on hunger strikes and resisting their Russian captors." Lol this has to be a joke. I'm gonna leave it in just to remind people not to take Wikipedia too seriously. Someone else can remove it if they feel so inclined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejh3141 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

the part dolphins being cared for by 'the best technicians available' yak yak... sounds pretty much like the military assuring the public that they're not mistreating the dolphins. even if it's true, it doesnt sound very encyclopdedic... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.106.151 (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I second that!77.11.125.131 (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent Silly Stories

[edit]

the Hurricane Katrina story — again — because it's already covered in more detail under U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program, which is where it belongs. I don't know why people get so excited about this obviously bogus story and keep trying to jam it in everywhere — there are serious questions about the reliability of the only source for the story, Leo Sheridan (see the Museum of Hoaxes). People should check sensational nonsense like this out in Snopes before posting it to Wikipedia. — Johantheghost 14:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I included it on the basis of an article in the UK Independent newspaper. You are probably right that it's nonsense - but I'd prefer the article to cover it. The Land 14:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that it is covered in the U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program article, which I think is the right place for it, since that's what it's referring to. Also, the fact that the indie and many other papers, TV stations, etc. have covered this doesn't give it any additional credence, because they're all just quoting the Observer article, which in turn comes from Leo Sheridan. Wide coverage doesn't give a story weight if all the coverage can be traced back to a single source who doesn't provide a shred of evidence for his clearly wacky claims. I think it says more about those newspapers than it does about the story. — Johantheghost 14:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just was to add that I agree with Johan's view. We can report these stories as the fact that they got published at all is interesting, but that doesn't stop them being wacky and evidence-free. Pcb21| Pete 19:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the authority for the existence of a "kamikaze" dolphin training program? The Navy site contradicts that assertion at http://www.spawar.navy.mil/sandiego/technology/mammals/NMMP_FAQ.html.

Contradiction

[edit]

The section titled "The military dolphin" contradicts the upper section of the article. In the lower section, it says that some dolphins were swept away during hurricane katrina, while in the upper it says that the story about escaped dolphins is a hoax. There also seem to be no references in the lower section.
This is a contradiction or at least a very unfortunate choice of terms (either quoting something in a non-obvious way, or a really bad choice of words, such as dolphins escaping meaning exactly escaping by their own means and never being recaptured, instead of just getting away).
190.30.120.36 (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fake photo?

[edit]

The photograph currently on the front page does not appear to be real. First off, the 'pinger' supposed strapped to the dolphin does not appear to be a real object, but a cartoon or pixel artwork of some sort. Second, the way it is strapped to the dolphin's fin is infeasible; it could not stay on this way. Third, the angle and distance of the dolphin in the background does not match the soldier in the foreground. Finally, the uniform the soldier (not sailor) is wearing is not Navy gear. 134.154.220.154 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yep, it's either fake or that soldier is a tiny tiny person who happens to be looking at a spot several metres behind the dolphin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.98.105 (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems apparent to me that the photo exhibits the "shortening" effect of long focal-length lenses, so the assertion that the relative sizes or angle of the seaman's (not soldier -- this is Navy) head are off is erroneous. As to whether the object could be mounted that way, it's pretty obvious that it could be when one looks at the profile of a dolphin's flipper. Shawn D. (talk) 00:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Care for the dolphins is not neutral

[edit]

The tone of the writing about the care of the dolphins sounds praising or advertising. "highly trained marine biologists". Vet staff "on call around the clock", well, any veterinary staff in a military is on call 24/7, not only for dolphins. I personally don't have a definite idea in how to rewrite this to remove the POV problem without removing potentially valuable information. Could somebody please have a try? I'm not too good in finding formulations, but I am still happy to give feedback. -ImmernochEkelAlfred(Spam me! (or send me serious messages, whatever you like)) 09:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Military dolphin. 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) 23:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Military dolphin. 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) 07:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Case for renaming/rescoping

[edit]

What do you think of the prospect of renaming and rescoping this article under the title "Military marine mammals"? The article currently touches upon the military use of seals and belugas (neither are dolphins), and it strikes me that a new title and some restructuring could greatly improve the article. --Danimations (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to dive in and restructure accordingly. Top level sections are now: 1) Dolphins, 2) Seals & sea lions and 3) Belugas. --Danimations (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Care of animals

[edit]

FYI: Since the navy doesn't have any vets, they use Air Force vets.

Source: worked there.

2603:8001:3846:2D00:A472:514:963F:E577 (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trainability for combat

[edit]

It well may be true that dolpins are difficult to train to use agression in a military relevant manner, for example to attack unauthorized envaders while staying safe to the authorized personnel. But the source, cited to support the claim doesn't say that. It says: "The navy has denied this claim, saying that it’s impossible to train dolphins to be combative." This is, of course, sheer nonsense. Dolphins don't need to be taught to be combative. They are borne combative. Their natural life is incessant fierce combat. Эйхер (talk) 12:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Military_marine_mammal&oldid=1209063963"