Talk:North Pacific right 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

Mammals Mid‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects 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.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Shell and the whales

There is a lot of controversy about a shell drilling platform and pacific right whale, but i can't find the source at the moment. it would be great to add that in.

Size of NP Right Whales compared to Bowheads & other right whales

Gamera1123 wrote "Like Bowhead Whales, largest Right Whales may reach up to over 20 m." No citation was provided.

The biggest NP right whale that I could find a record of was an 18.3m female and a 17.4m male (Klumov, 1962). My understanding is that Bowead Whales' size ranges from 14-17m (males) and 16-18 (females). The Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals says that some bowhead may be larger "perhaps as much as 20m". Bowheads certainly produced more whale oil/whale, but I understand this being a function of the thickness of their blubber and greater girth compared to right whales, rather than greater length. I edited this section deleting the reference to 20m, and adding the more specific length info. Any thoughts? NPRW4ever (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly cite trumps no cite. If another cite turns up it can be evaluated then. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From my reading of logbooks and journals, as well as secondary sources, it appears as though right whales of the northwest coast yielded as much as bowhead whales in the Western Arctic. Although they yielded less baleen, so I changed it to bowheads yield more baleen, but not necessarily oil. For example, both right and bowheads in the two above named regions averaged about 125-150 barrels of oil (during the early years when there were plenty of mature animals), with some yielding as much as 250 barrels. I believe the largest bowhead were somewhat larger though than the largest Northwest coast right whales, but I don't have my notes or books with me at the moment, so I'll have to check on that later. Jonas Poole (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. My memory was faulty. I re-read Best, P. (1987) Estimates of Landed Catch of Right (and other whalebone) whales in the American fishery, 1805-1909. Fishery Bulletin 85(3):403-418. Best found that right whales on the Northwest Ground averaged 122 barrels of oil whereas Bowhead whales from the western Arctic stock averaged 130 barrels which much overlap between species in the yield of individual whales. Right whales averaged 1,250 pounds of whalebone/whale which is not much different than the 1,300 pounds/whale for Bowhead whales. Best was interested in average oil/whalebone to convert landed oil/whalebone records to estimates of whales killed. The data on the maximum amount of oil and whalebone for individual whales may be less reliable. Best shows the maximum whalebone was around 2,200-2,300 pounds for a right whale on the Northwest Ground and 2,300-2,600 for Bowheads.

The switch from right whales to bowheads in 1847 and afterwards was related to the barrels of whale oil per whaleship rather than per whale according to Webb (1988). It apparently was not that bowheads were larger so much as that they had become easier to find and hunt than the depleted stock of right whales. NPRW4ever (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

large

A good deal of this article, particularly the whaling and laws sections are overly large and not entirely specific about this species. Also, the Conservation section is also proportionately large for a single species article. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first Wikipedia article I have worked on, so I am fairly clueless about guidelines for article length, content, etc. and appreciate comments.

On the "laws" section, I have tried to make sure that all the legal references ARE specific to the North Pacific Right Whale, and I believe that they are. This is a critically endangered species and the best tools conservationists have to protect and restore it are the laws prohibiting whaling and requiring Recovery Plans and Critical Habitat. Thus, I think it important that those be at least briefly described with links to references for more information. The history of litigation leading to the designation of critical habitat could be significantly shortened since the info is also contained at the Center for Biological Diversity website. I had not edited that since that history had predated my involvement with the article, and was almost the only content on this species when I got involved.

On the "Conservation" section length, I do not know what the guidelines are. NP right whale conservation has some aspects to it that are critical, very different from many other endangered species, and suggestive of bigger environmental problems in the future. To wit: (1) NP right whales are vastly more difficult to find to study than any other population of right whales which are easy to locate at least at one season of year, and (2) NPRW's need for very dense concentrations of copepods on which to feed means that their "critical habitat" in fact "moves" when oceanographic conditions vary, making more difficult the relatively geographically static idea of critical habitat in the Endangered Species Act. I plan to add more information linking this movement of prey concentrations to climate issues such as global warming. On the other hand, there is very little evidence to suggest that the conservation issues that play such a huge part in the Recovery Plan for the North Atlantic Right whale (ship strikes, location of shipping channels, entanglement in fishing gear) are important factors for the North Pacific Right Whale. I thought it important to at least mention some of these differences. It may be possible to do this in a more compact way. NPRW4ever (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These issues are always tricky - my take on it is that the species is the standard unit people generally gravitate to in biology as a defining unit (except in paleontology). I agree on the relevance to whaling as Right whales were first in the firing line, and many highly endangered species have detailed conservation setions - see Kakapo, which is Featured. There are plenty of Featured whale articles to compare with, all (?) the rorquals for starters. I'll keep an eye on thiings to and try to lend a hand. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes, References, both?

I am new to Wikipedia, so I'm here seeking guidance. When I initially drafted material for the article, I relied on two types of sources: (1) articles or books devoted to this species and of widespread interest and (2) articles/books that support a point in the text, but of marginal interest to someone wanting more info about this species. I included both types of sources in the footnotes for citation purposes, and had these citations appear under the heading "Notes". The articles and books that provide a broad amount of information about the species that readers might want to follow up with, I included in addition in a section titled "References". I understood that this style was consistent with Wikipedia style guidelines, and indeed seemed to be the format that Wikipedia used in its own page on how to do citations (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources). Subsequently, others have edited my initial effort to include all of the citations under notes, renamed the section on notes to "References" and eliminated the prior section on general references. Is this a preferred style for cetacean articles? Personally I think it does a bit of a disservice to the reader in not distinguishing between the widely-varying relative value of different sources to the general reader, and accordingly, if possible I would prefer to go back to the style layout I had originally used. NPRW4ever (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has moved massively to inline citations in the past two years, so that strictly every reference should refer to a particular statement. Having a general reference at the bottom not linked to any statement leaves open the use of reliable or authoritative references at the bottom of an article where dubious statements have crept in. What I do, you can see on major depressive disorder, where there are about half a dozen references (books) which have multiple pages used. Thus, books etc. where different pages can go there. It doesn't really matter what you call the two headings - I called them 'references' and 'cited texts', others change it to 'footnotes' and 'references'. Any important text which is not sepficially referenced for some reason can go it 'further reading' or 'external links'. I'll have a look at the diffs. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The article is looking pretty good and well on the way to FAC. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: Let me know if the footnotes of major depressive disorder makes sense or not, also Willie Wagtail is another recent one I have been involved with. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Casliber. The way you handled notes and cited texts looks very good to me. Coming from both legal & scientific backgrounds, I have no problem providing a citation for each potentially controversial point. However, I also want to direct readers to review articles that provide the most background most quickly and efficeintly. My understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines is that they do not want authors to list in "Further Reading" sources that have already been listed in notes/references. So, separating such review papers out as "Cited Texts" or something similar may be the only way to go.

You limited the "Cited Texts" to entire books that deal with a subject (and in one case a chapter in a book). With respect to No. Pacific right whales, there is only one book on the species (Webb 1988), and the other 10 or so high priority review papers about right whales are all scientific articles. However, getting access to any of those papers will save readers vast amounts of time compared to chasing down the more specific references cited in the notes.

PS: I full appreciated the Willie Wagtail article. I do a lot of wildlife photography (http://www.pbase.com/jimscarff/) NPRW4ever (talk) 02:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cited texts is not necessarily entire books, with some subjects, a book may have several pages or references but only cover the subject tangentially - the major depressive disorder has a diverse range of books whose subjects often only intersect (although broadly) with the material. I can see what you are getting at and am not sure how to prioritise references except that you may want to mention in the body of the text about, say, one significant author/sicentists contribution (eg like Jane Gooddall and the chimps or somesuch) and write it asa paragraph. Otherwise I am not sure WP is technical enough to promote certain studies in footnotes, actually (lightbulb above head goes on) - if you look in the cite format there is often a section called 'quote=' and I guess you can mention as a comment whether one is akey study that way. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How Does One Cite Federal Regulations?

I have included in the article a bunch of citations to the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations. Is there a recommended style for making those citations? Specifically, (1) should those cites appear in the text? in the notes/references only/ or in both? (I thought I put them in notes, but now some at least are in the text.) (2) How are these sighted? Is the Code of Federal Regulations "CFR", "C.F.R.", "Code Fed Reg."? Is the Federal Register "FR", "FedReg" "Federal Register"?

Then, are citations to the regulations included with the text of the article? Can they/should they just be put into notes/references? NPRW4ever (talk) 02:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal Soviet whaling in the 1960s

I think this needs a rewrite, or the opening line at least. Seems to be personal rather than unbiased and neutral.--86.26.110.119 (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--- I reread this section and do not understand why you find it personal or biased. The illegal Soviet take of thousands of endangered and protected right, blue and humpback whales in the North Pacific and Southern Ocean was the biggest crime committed in modern whaling history. The Soviet take of right whales in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea was particularly damaging, eliminating perhaps 90 percent of this population.

This was not a question of the Soviets engaging in whaling at arguably sustainable levels contrary to the wishes of conservation groups. This was a history of the Soviets killing every whale they could find in violation of the treaty obligations that they had agreed to then repeatedly submitting knowingly completely false reports to the Bureau of International Whaling Statistics. If you have not done so, read the Clapham on-line article referenced in the article. If you have found anybody or any article that defends or has a different perspective on what the Soviets did with right whales in the North Pacific, please come forward with it. NPRW4ever (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CETA capitalisation discussion

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bowhead Whale which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 02:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Western North Pacific edits

Hi. I don't understand the following additions to the above section. Several times "(later described)" is inserted into the text. Did the contributer mean "(see below)"? Or were they going to add something later? Very confused on that point. And this little section perplexes me: "Records in this area in 2011 are later described." Perhaps this was part of something accidently deleted in the editing process? I'll have to go search the edit history. I'd be very thankful if anyone could help. SaberToothedWhale (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hybridization with bowhead whale

"Over the short term the hybrid offspring from these Arctic animal matings will likely be strong and healthy, because unlike inbreeding, which magnifies deleterious genes, so-called outbreeding can mask these genes...But over time, as the hybrids mate randomly, those harmful genes will come out of hiding and make the offspring less fit and less capable of surviving."[130][131]"

After checking the references: I could not see 131 because it is from nature.com and not available for free (however, the comments below the article are accessible), 130 is from livescience.com; both seem somewhat more of an entertaining magazine than hardcore science. The text i cited from the wiki article is not clear enough for me, especially how the conclusion (harmful genes will come out and make the offspring less capable) is correctly coming from what is said in the previous sentece. Also less capable than WHAT? (Than the offspring of a non-hybridized mating, or than both offspring from hybrid and non-hybrid matings that do not have a pair of the recessive alleles that carry the unfavorable genes? What is compared to what in this livescience-article that is cited here? I belive the source is not a good quality source to be used as reference, but rather a unbacked speculation from the mouth of a scientist, who is speaking to the general public in a (perhaps over-) simplified way.

I do understand however that, a low number of the NPR whales makes them vulnerable to the hybridization, as any hybrid-mating replaces a potential non-hybrid mating, thus effectively pushing the original NPR whale "race" toverds extinction as such, however, this hybridization does offer more preservation to their gene-pool, than no mating at all, so the hybridization driven extinction is more of an evolving into something, or merging into a larger existing gene pool, than mere disappearence from the biosphere. This point however is not made in the cited text. 94.64.40.237 (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC) I mean "on the short term" the hybrid offspring (seems) more fit to survive "but over time" they are not... - is what the cited text basicly says and it is not clear, why it would be so. From the point of view concerned about the "faulty" genes, that would be a problem in inbreeding, this hybridization is not a short time gain, but a gain in every sense. If the hybrids will be subject to genetic flaws on the long run because of the (flawed) recessive alleles forming pairs (in some of their offspring), this applies the more to the non-hybrid inbred offspring even on the short term. So this point makes no sense as I see it. And this recessive alleles hazard has nothing to do with the hazard of extinction by being melted in a larger pool of the bowhead whales, so it is better not to mix them up in one paragraph. 94.66.182.86 (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on North Pacific right 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) 00:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]