Talk:Whale/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Baleen Whales

The Whale page seemed to be using "whale" to mean the suborder Mysticeti, baleen whales. I've rephrased to make clear that toothed whales exist, but this runs us into a problem: the divisions in English, of whale/dolphin/porpoise, don't match current taxonomy. Did you know scientists in 1973 discovered the baleen whales could be nocternal.

The other problem is that cetacean taxonomy seems to be confused, to put it mildly. cetacea.org doesn't agree with Walker's Mammals of the World (http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/walkers_mammals_of_the_world/cetacea/cetacea.html), which goes into more detail and admits the difficulties. From cetacea.org I can't even figure out which genera they're including in which families.

If anyone here knows more about cetacean taxonomy than I do (not hard), please take a look at this. Vicki Rosenzweig 09:14 Aug 17, 2002 (PDT)

NB note to new readers, this comment refers to a long out-of-date version of this page. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

that bone is not useless it is connected to muscles to help it have sex and give brith

Please read vestigial structure. You appear to be attempting to start general discussion, rather than improve the article by raising a specific way in which the article can be improved. This page is not for general discussion. Skittle 10:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Whale songs?

Why is there nothing about Whale songs? (not meaning to anthropomorphize the behavior either) The sounds made by whales are pretty well known and an interesting area of study. older≠wiser 16:10, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi Bkonrad, I had a look at the article on 'cattle', and the same thing: It was nothing about the cow song. The sounds made by cattle are pretty well known and an interesting area of study, too. --Arnejohs 18:52, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, if you know of any serious scientific research being done on cattle sounds, then by all means add them to that article. I'm not aware of any and think you're just trying to make a wisecrack, although I feel you may actually be trying to insinuate that research into whale sounds is somehow not worthwhile to mention. older≠wiser 19:08, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about the cheeky comment, but yes: It can be disputed how serious the scientific research on 'whale songs' is. Only the choice of the term ?song? indicates a certain interpretation. The comparison of cattle is however not a coincidence, fin whales and cattle are related. The large whales are ruminants or have been (e.g. indicated by several stomachs). But there is a big difference though: Whale sound is only obtained through hydrophones? --Arnejohs 19:40, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Ah yes, I'm sure pro-whale hunting advocates are keen to discredit any research that could be used to show that whales might be intelligent and sensitive creatures. I guess that's a matter of POV. Yes "song" does have certain implications and certainly some persons go too far in anthropomorphizing and romanticizing the "inner life" of whales. Nonethless, the sounds are commonly referred to as songs (indeed, some have used to sounds to create musical compositions--although of course we can only speculate about what the whales might make of such compositions). And yet, research into animal communications is a serious topic and worth mentioning. older≠wiser 22:00, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Hmm.. is it anthropomorphizing to talk about birds' songs?

I propose putting content about whale songs directly into the species' articles. Humpback whale should fit best, as analyses of their vocalization revealed stunning characteristics. (A small note already exists on the Baleen whale page under behaviour section. --Borys 12:27, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

I plan to do a stand-alone article that would be linked to from several places because there is a lot in common, even though the Humpbacks are the most complex. I think Arnejohs comments show that he is not appreciative of the fact that sight and smell, two extremely important mammalian senses, don't work that well underwater. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Well I made a start at whale song. Comments welcome. But I did realize you are quite right... the topic is too big to put all information about all species in one article... so there is plenty more to be added to individual species articles. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Whale band

There is a band called Whale too. The were signed to Hut Recordings once--Onefool 00:51, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Intro

The introduction tells about the ambiguities of the term whale, but nothing is said about which definition is adapted here. I suggest including all cetaceans. It avoids the pilot whale problem, and otherwise most content would have to be duplicated or moved to the cetacea article (which contains only the taxonomy). Also the links would have to be changed (at least the German and Polish ones lead to articles about all cetaceans). So, if nobody protests, I will add this to the intro (similar as in dolphins). --Borys 12:39, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

I think the reason we are not told what definition is adopted here is because no definition is in fact adopted! If pushed for a definition I think most scientists would say a whale is a cetacean that is not a porpoise or a dolphin (and where a dolphin is defined as a member of Delphinidae or the river dolphins). I am not certain what exactly what you are suggesting, but it would be misleading to equate "whales" with "cetaceans" in the intro. Better to simple write "these physical properties are also true of dolphins" where appropriate. I am quite comfortable with having the bulk of the information at dolphin and whale because that is where people will look for information. People with the sufficient prior knowledge to get to cetacea will also get to whale and dolphin. Everyone is happy, even if there is a small amount of duplication between the whale and dolphin articles, that what be an occasion where redundancy is useful. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Dividing cetaceans exclusively into whales and dolphins as you describe is a definition I can work with. Consequently, I will have to remove the dolphin-specific info from this article. Also, the problem remains what to do with the cetacea article: copy the content about common characteristics there, or leave it with only taxonomical info?
I guess this is a general problem with biological articles: How much content do you put into the upper catagory articles, how much into the special? Are there any suggestions what is considered a good style? --Borys 20:09, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

External links

Although it claims to be "a non-commercial website", http://www.cetacea.org/ hosts the CetaceaShop, surely having commercial interests in being represented at WikipediA. The information provided is also filled up with strong POVs, like:

"Countries like Japan and Norway, unable to justify the cull of whales except as part of tradition, have pulled the wool over the world's eyes and persuaded the International Whaling Commission to allow them to continue their slaughter as part of research. The Japanese claim that the whales they kill are scientifically studied to enable mankind to understand more about them. However, the meat from these 'scientifically studied' whales somehow finds its way onto the supermarket shelf - and is sold for as little as £100/lb.

The same can be said for dolphins. Yes, dolphins - like Flipper, like Keiko from Free Willy, like Darwin from SeaQuest DSV. These playful, funloving creatures are also slaughtered in much the same way, with their meat appearing beside the whales', priced at £70/lb. However, it is not with harpoons that dolphins are caught. They are tricked into the shallows of coves, and - when coming to greet the humans who would play with them - are instead met with a hook which is sliced into their side."

Therefore I have deleted the reference to www.cetacea.org.

Arnejohs 04:47, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Since when is there a requirement that external links be either non- commercial or NPOV? Andy Mabbett 06:16, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There are of course no NPOV requirements on external links. But here the other links are labelled according to their POVs, while the cetacean.org site was not. Well, it could be labelled as the two others, but in this case it also showed to be a commercial site. I thought it was a common understanding to avoid promotions and advertisements in Wikipedia. Am I wrong? --- Arnejohs 06:24, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

At a minimum we must label strongly POV external links, especially if their reason for existence is campaigning (e.g. as we do with Greenpeace and the HNA). Given the quote that you made, I think it would be worth giving cetacea.org a tag of something like "Cetacea.org has good factual information on the biology and life history of whales. However it also has an anti-whaling stance." As for commercial links, this is not something that tends to be labelled as so many sites are commercial that we would drown in the noise. Singling out cetacea.org may not be a great idea, although a change in general policy would be worth at least discussing. Pcb21| Pete 10:06, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That site is not about whales alone, but about cetaceans in general. It's not topic-specific. It's like adding a site about the US to an article on Michigan. --Menchi 06:45, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that's a reasonable objection. If a site about United States had lots of good information about Michigan, then we might link there from Michigan. Having said that, those links have been there a long time since the time when our coverage is much poorer than it is now - these days our coverage is probably nearly as good as cetacea.org's except for pictures. Pcb21| Pete 10:06, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

New Evolution of Ceteceans Page

The "Evolution of Whales" section is really about evolution of cetaceans, as the common ancestor of the cetaceans was the one who entered the water. Would it be agreeable to create a new article evolution of cetaceans, and link to this new article (along with short one-sentence summaries) from whale, dolphin, porpoise and cetacea? AxelBoldt 10:37, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. :) The Singing Badger 13:36, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Whale intelligence

• I came here to read about whale intelligence and am disappointed to find that this question rates not a mention.
• Also, if dolphins are not whales, why do we have a paragraph about the conservation status of river dolphins at this article? Adam 15:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Cetacean intelligence is the article to see. I will link to that from here.
• Good point - I will clear up. Pcb21| Pete 07:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cetacean intelligence is entirely about dolphins. I guessI will have to write the answer to my own question (again). Adam 08:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No-one's making you Adam! But feel free... :) Pcb21| Pete 16:05, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have had a go. Adam 23:35, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This effort reads a lot like original work. If you have found sources about whale intelligence please summarise and cite them, rather than creating original arguments. 10 August 2005.

Pardon me for knowing something about the subject. I will try to be less knowledgeable in future. Adam 23:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

To the original commenter, they are not original arguments - they are the arguments typically made by those who believe the whale-huggers have invented a fairy story about really clever whales. As such it probably biased to the whaler's point of view. Pcb21| Pete 08:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I am opposed to whaling, but not on the grounds of whale intelligence. Adam 08:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

That wasn't my point at all. You're being knowledgable, but you are also creating original arguments that appear to defend a particular view, without having cited any sources. Without reference to the truth or otherwise of what you wrote, the advice about original research should help you to restructure what you've written to fit with what Wikipedia is about. 16 August 2005.

As I said, they're not original arguments. They may not cite sources, but they are not original arguments. Pcb21| Pete 07:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay. The points may not be original, but they read as though they are, partly because of the length and the detail given to the arguments. To change the balance of the article you could - 1. shorten this part of the article; it is disproportionately long, 2. give references: "This has led some to argue that...". Who has it lead to argue that, where? I like the contribution, but don't know enough about the subject to tackle the section myself. 16 August 2005.

This rule seems to be designed to exclude people who actually know something about the subject they are writing about. I can't source my statements about the laws of natural selection, any more than I can source my statement that the earth goes round the run. This is just stuff I know. Perhaps I should leave this to someone who has to look up elementary facts of biology. Adam 07:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

And please sign your contributions. Adam 07:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

It is very possible to cite a scientific source refering to the earth going 'round the sun. The reason for having people cite sources is so they can be verified. Jenzwick 19:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)jenzwick

I removed the following: "Some claim that whales are more intelligent than humans. " Who are these people? Such an outlandish statement certainly deserves some kind of citation.Sixtus LXVI 21:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Removed another "whales are smarter than people" comment. Specifically, I removed the following:

"Some have claimed that whales can do most or all of these things, at a level equal to, or superior to, humans."

The things in question include:

"the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience."

Once again, who, specifically, are the people who claim this? Not to sound like a broken record, but ridiculous claims like this really ought to be cited. Sixtus LXVI 17:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Sleeping

The Behaviour section says, among others:

"Because of their environment (and unlike many animals), whales are conscious breathers: They have to decide when to breathe. So how do they sleep? All mammals sleep, and so do whales, but they cannot afford to fall unconscious state for too long, since they need to be conscious in order to breathe."

Am I mistaken in assuming that humans are conscious breathers too? While it's true that when we're unconscious we need external aid in breathing, we can breathe all right when we're asleep... Can someone confirm or explain? --Gutza ^{T T+} 16:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you are mistaken—somewhat. Humans and most animals breath unconsciously. We can temporarily override the unconscious stimulation of the muscles of respiration (mainly the diaphragm), although if one holds his breath for too long, unconscious control will force a breath. While sleeping, or even unconscious, we continue to breathe. And virtually all breaths we take are involuntary. This is not true for whales; every breath is a conscious decision. A suicidal whale or one with unusual brain physiology could just swim along, refuse to surface and to breathe, and therefore die (of course, any that did so would be unlikely to produce descendants). However, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a human to kill himself in this manner. Incidentally, there is a condition, called Ondine's curse if I recall correctly, in which this automatic control is damaged, and people must consciously take each breath; if such a patient (untreated) falls asleep, he will die. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I understand the distinction between completely voluntary breathing and the human "override mode" of the default "automatic" breathing. However, I have a couple of objections to your explanation: (1) when truly unconscious (e.g. during surgery), humans do need external help to breathe; and (2) it's not at all difficult to commit suicide in the manner you proposed for whales -- remember, you're underwater, the thing is called drowning! :-)

My objection to the way the article text is formulated is making it more clear whether the actual issue is (as I secretly expect) more related to the fact that sleeping while breathing and swimming poses a serious threat of drowning, or whether the problem is indeed the fact that whales can't breathe while asleep (has anyone really checked this? I'm imagining this huge whale in a tiny bed, surrounded by a choir of scientists singing lullabies to make it sleep...), or even whether the two issues are interwoven, whereas the threat of drowning has generated the evolutionary solution of making whales unable to breathe while sleeping in order to prevent them from dying in a most ridiculous fashion. --Gutza ^{T T+} 08:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

A couple of points - you drown when you (involuntarily) take a breath underwater, filling your lungs with water and killing you.

Whales die due to lack of oxygen to the brain and body through not breathing because of their inability to get to the surface due to illness or old-age.

Also whales do "sleep" but only half their brain at a time. Scientists are able to do EEG scans on whales and they are very different ECGs to humans. Basically much of the time one half a whale brain will be doing nothing much at all (it is effectively asleep). Then it will switch to the other half. Other times, when it needs to feed, communicate or move quickly, both halves will be active. In humans, the whole brain is very active when awake, and only somewhat active when asleep. Pcb21| Pete

Yes, I got the part with the half-brain-sleeping-half-brain-awake, that's not the issue -- and BTW, I'm not even close to contesting that. But if I understand correctly what you're saying, it seems like whales never drown, period; they may die because of lack of oxygen, but they never actually breathe water in. If that's the case, then this information should make it in the article explicitly -- it would clarify a lot of the issues. --Gutza ^{T T+} 14:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Your persistence has paid off, Gutza :) I set off to find a copper-bottomed reference that stated whether or not, when faced with their final choice, whales choose to drown asphyixiate or drown. I can't find one that makes an explicit statement. I am happy for you to elaborate in the article to that effect unless someone has a reference. Pcb21| Pete 17:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I can't edit the article based on lack of information... :-) The information is probably available out there somewhere, we just need to wait. --Gutza ^{T T+} 12:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Citations!!!

Towards the end of the article, there is a sentence that reads Because of their learning ability, they are also used by the military for marine warfare. Ummm...I may be out of the loop a bit, but I wasn't aware that this was a "publicly recognized piece of common knowledge." Sorry for the redundancy see, but, at least, if making these claims, please provide a citation. Kingerik 03:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I can't see such a sentence. Adam 05:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

For our future reference on the topic of military dolphins

PBS documentary on the topic : http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/whales/etc/navycron.html

"Official" .mil site on the topic: www.spawar.navy.mil/sandiego/technology/mammals/

Some myth debunking following Hurricane Katrina - http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1577753,00.html

The web is full of this stuff. Pcb21| Pete 14:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Whale Size

Several dinosaurs, particular of the suborder Sauropodomorpha, were much larger than even the Blue Whale. This needs to be addressed/updated in the entry.

I don't think so. Some may have been longer ever so slightly, but none so far are heavier. Argentinosaurus is 120 tons, but blue whales can top 150 tons.61.230.72.211 01:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Use Wiki to check out the suborder I previously mentioned. Greater weight does not necessarily equal "larger", it could simply mean more dense, with denser skeletal or muscular systems, etc. If it is determined that the volume of a Blue Whale is the greatest of all time, fine, but there are dinosaur skeletons that have been found that are much longer than that of the Blue Whale. Seansquared 16:51, 19 July 2006

Thanks. That was what I wanted to say. The blue whale is still biggest, to say it in a nutshell. Dora Nichov 04:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

frequent random vandalism

Is there any reason that this article is the subject of such frequent (and random) vandalism? (Like here, although the history is replete with examples.) I mean, it's not like I haven't seen vandalism before, but of all the pages on my watchlist, this is the one that gets hit the most... just wondered if anyone knew why. --Graham^talk/mail/e 23:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Anatomy of the ear

I added a section about the whale's ear anatomy, and how it works around the low- to high-impedance air/water problem. I actually tried to look it up here on wikipedia, but when there wasn't an entry, researched it myself and added this bit. Jenzwick 22:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Jenzwick

Reference 7 appears to be a dead link and should be deleted or replaced. Haligonian1 (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

POV issues

See discussion at Talk:Cetacea#POV issues. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 00:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Whale intelligence

I'm moving this here for now:

The particular dispute in case of cetaceans is the conflict between social ability and abstract problem solving ability. Cetaceans, particularly dolphins, are highly social, and in addition they are generally friendly to humans. Tests even indicate that they are social to the point of being self-aware . This is one major factor showing that cetaceans are highly intelligent. However, canines and many other pack animals are also social (and are often perceived by the public to be intelligent due to such behaviour) but their problem solving abilities are usually rated lower than those of pigs. Dolphins, despite showing highly sophisticated skill in communication[1], do very badly in problem solving, which is considered a more rigorous indication of intelligence.

"Into the Brains of Whales" by Mark Peter Simmonds was published in the Journal of Applied Animal Behaviour Science 100 (2006) 103-116. In this article it is asserted that behavior and social structures are accurate indicators of intelligence. On this premise, the author argues that whales and dolphins are highly intelligent though most of his argument is based on dolphins, as it is impossible or too costly to conduct experiments or observation on whales in captivity. One indicator of intelligence, it is argued, is self-awareness. It is argued, though the finding is still disputed, that bottlenose dolphins have been shown to be able to recognize themselves in a mirror. This behavior had previously only been recorded in humans, elephants and apes. Also, the use of tools is another example of intelligence. An example of this form of intelligence has been observed in Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins who carry sponges on their beaks to protect themselves when foraging for food. Further evidence of intelligence, as defined by Simmonds are emotions typically seen in humans such as grief, parental love and joy, though these are fairly common trait of many mammals especially pack animals. Another example of intelligence are complex social interactions and structures. These traits are seen in dolphins and whales. An example being that dolphins were observed to have a cohesion and reliance upon each other and that despite risk of dehydration, being stranded, and risking shark attack, a group of false killer whales floated for 3 days in the shallows of the straits of Florida, USA to protect an injured male. The dolphins became agitated when attempts by rescuers were made to separate them. The dolphins only calmed when reunited.

On the other hand, another, and some argue to be more rigorus, definition of intelligience is "the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience." In the case of dolphins, some assert that they do poorly in this respect. In a paper published in Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, Paul Manger argue that the size of cecetarian brain is the evolutionary result of need to keep the brain warm. Further Manger stated that, "You put an animal in a box, even a lab rat or gerbil, and the first thing it wants to do is climb out of it. If you don't put a lid on top of the bowl a goldfish it will eventually jump out to enlarge the environment it is living in,... But a dolphin will never do that. In the marine parks, the dividers to keep the dolphins apart are only a foot or two above the water between the different pools."[2]

From an evolutionary point of view, this is consistent with the principles of natural selection. Intelligence does not arise spontaneously: like any other animal capacity, it evolves under the pressure of the animal's environment. The human brain has evolved under the pressure of natural selection in a hostile terrestrial environment. The key primate characteristics - bipedalism and the opposable thumb - gave the early hominids the ability to manipulate their environment through the use of technology (by making tools). This seemingly unique adaptation created a virtuous cycle: more intelligence and consequent tool-making gave hominids with a decisive evolutionary advantage, leading to larger and more sophisticated brain functions, and thus to more tool-making. This process is one of the proposed explanations of the exponential growth of hominid intelligence over the past million years.

The whale has faced slightly different environmental stimuli to brain evolution. Whales live in an environment with few natural predators, but they lack a sense of smell and require large amounts of food each day. Their numerous adaptations to their marine environment include increasing size, developing echolocation and sensitive hearing, forming complex social structures and streamlining the body (including elimination of hind limbs). This indicate that they may have developed skill in communication and coordinated pack behaviour as seen in many pack animal but little in term of intelligence. From an evolutionary point of view, there is little reason for whales to have evolved intelligence, since their survival does requires them to perform tasks that require intelligence beside what other animal usually needs.

Many whale species have a sophisticated social system. It has been discovered that they can recognise and differentiate each individual. Many other animals, including insects, have complex social systems, and many others, such as birds, have sophisticated communications. Whales also have very acute hearing with a well developed section of brain which govern this function, which gives them advanced echo-location capacities even more advanced than man-made sonar - a function found in no other creature except other cetaceans, bats, and possibly shrews.

More recently, it has also been suggested that the relatively large brains of cetaceans primarily have a thermoregulatory function and has little to do with intelligence.

A much more neutral, balanced and careful presentation of the research is called for. Specifically, the research cited on dolphins is highly controversial within the scientific community [3] and presented in the above as fact. Moreover, it is redundantly repeated several times.--Eloquence* 19:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hey people... I just removed some vandalism from the page. It seems to get hit alot - maybe it should be locked... Who makes that decision, anyway??? Scotsman24 06:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Link

The link to the Polish version of the page should be to "Wieloryb" which is the corresponding term for "Whale" in Polish. The current link is to "Walenie" which corresponds to the English language article "Cetacea". Just thought you should know, since I cannot change it myself, as the page is locked.

Zwiastun 12:40, 24 March 2007

I;ve fixed that, thank you. Chris_huh^talk 19:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody can add link to the Russian page: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B8%D1%82 or http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Киты ? Филатов Алексей (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ну конечно! --JayHenry (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!! :) Филатов Алексей (talk) 11:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Whale vs. Dolphin vs. Porpoise

Are 'killer whales' whales? By some definitions, yes. By some definitions, no. Sigh!R Young {^yakł_talk} 07:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Longevity news?

Some local tabloid wrote yesterday that native eskimos in Anchorage have recently killed a whale and found a broken harpoon embedded in its back. That kind of harpoon was last manufactured 127 years ago! Although this is not a proof, it still suggests whales may live significantly longer than the commonly assumed 70-80 years. 82.131.210.162 07:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Not tabloid any more, the BBC now carries it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6751175.stm

See Bowhead Whale where this is incorporated in the article. Stefan 23:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the general age to what appears to me to be the normal range (the evidence doesn't show that whales 'normally' live to 200, I think), but I can't find one reference that encompasses all the whales. Also, I don't have access to the journal article [4] apart from the abstract, any more info from there would be useful--PhilMacD (talk) 10:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to be very conservative with these longevity claims. A little research reveals that the the harpoons that are discovered in some whales are not that hard to find among collectors and some of the supposedly embedded English harpoon heads have turned up on the Pacific coast where no English ships were ever whaling. Also much of the "science" behind the bowhead whale claims living over 70 years (211!) are based on the dubious process called amino acid racemization which "has also been used to measure age, did not correlate well with values provided by other dating methods." [5] It may make a good fish story but I'm not sure we aren't misleading readers. Eudemis (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought some of that stuff sounded a bit fanciful. I've changed the text and moved it into a section on its own as it didn't really fit in anatomy Richerman (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Whales in Culture

I propose a part of the article that should discuss the place of whales in popular culture. I would like to write it myself but the truth is I am not an expert in the matter. Such article should be extended from themes such as the whale of Jonah, that was not necessarily a whale (as the biblical text calls it "dagah" meaning feminine fish; not an implication of a whale but under biblical taxonomics also not a denial of one), the "levyatan", regarded by many as a biblical whale in Genexis, Pinoccio's whale, Moby Dick, Keiko, Willy, and other whales. As such the view on whaling throughout history, the different meaning of whales in various cultures (like the Vikings and other such, probably Nordic, groups) should be also detailed.

201.141.147.137 19:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I have just restored the section that used to be in this article on whales in culture as a starting point. It was removed in this edit as unnecessary - that edit was not vandalism but a good faith edit. Most articles on well-known animals have a similar section and the one that was removed isn't too bad. Graham87 01:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some pretty irrelevant stuff in this section. For example, there is a bullet point about a story where someone had an affair on a whale-watching trip. Maybe we should add this point to Earth in Culture, Affairs in Culture, Relationships in Culture, People in Culture, etc.

However, I was surprised to see no mention of the movie Star Trek IV in this section. The movie is a commentary on our the human tendency to hunt species into extinction - in this case, whales.

Personally, I think such a section should stick to things like this (an other examples already in the section), which actually use whales for some purpose, whether social commentary, history, religion, etc. Any thoughts?

MatttK (talk) 13:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

To me such a section should only contain references to significant parts in notable works - such as Moby Dick, Jonah's escapades etc. - or how they relate to the culture of a people such as a god in the form of a whale or the worship of whales. These sections that list occurrences of whales in modern films or TV series are not 'culture'; a more appropriate title would be "Whales in modern media", though many of the links there should really be deleted. Perhaps when I have more time. |→ Spaully ^τ 15:20, 27 June 2009 (GMT)

Yeah, I would agree with that. I'll have a look and remove anything obvious. MatttK (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Intelligence section

A well-cited and balanced Intelligence section still eludes us... The tags on this are rather embarassing so I've pulled the whole section for now until someone has a chance to clean it up. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 08:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

{{POV-section}} {{Unreferenced|date=August 2006}} {{Original research}} {{Main|Cetacean intelligence}}

An often used, but discredited indicator of intelligence is overall brain size, since humans have bigger brains than most other animals. Whales have the largest brain of any animal. A typical sperm whale brain weighs about 7.8 kg, whereas a typical human brain weighs about 1.5 kg. While it may seem that this would indicate that five times greater intelligence, there is a theory that, in mammals, intelligence should be measured in the brain mass to body mass ratio, and that most of the extra brain capacity is used to manage the larger body. Only here do humans have an advantage. A human brain comprises about 2% of the human body mass, while the sperm whale's brain comprises only 0.02% of its body mass. A cattle brain is four times as large as a whale's by this criterion. On the other hand, a large proportion of a whale's body mass is blubber, which requires no brain power, and this distorts the ratio. Also the brain size of animals does not increase at the same rate as body size. However, because cetacean brains function quite differently from the human brain, even if whales had matching body/brain weight ratio to humans, it is not a conclusive indication of high intelligence. Simply, "overall" brain size is not a decisive criterion because it is now known that different parts of the brain regulate different functions, mostly physiological. Hummingbirds have an even higher brain-to-body ratio than humans, as do some dolphins. The next consideration is the structure of the brain. It is generally agreed that the growth of the neocortex, both absolutely and relative to the rest of the brain, during human evolution, has been responsible for the evolution of intelligence, however defined. In most mammals the neocortex has six layers, and its different functional areas (vision, hearing, etc) are sharply differentiated. The whale neocortex, on the other hand, has only five layers, and there is little differentiation of these layers according to function, much like that of some present-day insectivores. This has led some to argue that the whale brain has not significantly evolved since the distant ancestors of the whale took to a marine lifestyle about 50 million years ago. However, even if this is true, it does not follow that this older design of brain is any less efficient.

Many people, particularly in the West, believe that cetaceans in general, and whales in particular, are highly intelligent animals. This belief has become one of a central argument against whaling (killing whales for commercial reasons). Proponents of whale and dolphin intelligence cite the social behaviour of whales and dolphins and their apparent capacity for communication as evidence of a sophisticated intellect, though scientists often carefully point out the difference between the social traits and intelligence of animals, which laymen often confuse. Given the radically different environment of whales and humans, and the size of whales compared to dolphins or chimpanzees, for instance, it is extremely difficult to test these views experimentally."

Moby Dick Whale extracts

EXTRACTS (Supplied by a sub-sub-librarian)

In Moby Dick, http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=Mel2Mob.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=front or somewhere else

a sub-sub-librarian character, lists every single instance he could find of the english word 'whale' printed and

• I wondered if it were feasible to even begin to attempt to do the same now.

thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmblair (talk • contribs) 08:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Protection

I have been watching this page for the last month and have noticed it is vandalized almost daily by unregistered users... I propose to add some minimal protection to the page to prevent this. --travisthurston + 18:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have had this on my watch list for awhile as well and notice the frequent vandalism (many of the whale articles see this). I think its due to the fact that its a common study subject in schools. I disagree on permanent protection though, it goes against wikipedia ideals. The vandalism is pretty random and very manageable I think. Russeasby 18:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I semi-protected it for 3 months before seeing this message - I think 50 vandalism edits in just over a day is far too much. It clogs up the history. Graham87 05:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Whale Behaviour

The whale behaviour section starts with "Main Article: Whale Behaviour", but the link just links you straight back to the same thing, which strikes me as rather pointless, should it be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.201.15.185 (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). BrainyBabe (talk) 07:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

cap —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.217.77.98 (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Closest Living Relative

I've come across some pages claiming that the closest living relative of the whale is not the hippo, as this page suggests, but cows. Some studies claim cows descended from a deer like creature and are most closely related to cows. Here are two links: http://www.livescience.com/animals/071219-ap-whale-relative.html http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3606 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.98.143 (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The first link is interesting, but says that even under this hypothesis hippos are the closest living relative. The essay in the second link doesn't really even have a basic understanding of paleontology. --JayHenry (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Intelligence guys?

I am new, and i use wikipedia daily. the article does not talk about intelligence in whales. can somebody add that for me? for everybody? I have heard that the ration of brain size to body size show that the whale is not a very smart animal. is this true or not? somebody please add a section on intelligence. Naturada137 (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Naturada137

Life span

I was watching 'Arena', BBC4, uk tv last night, and they mentioned how a whale killed in greenland in 1996 had a harpoon in it which was dated to being 211 years old, meaning that whales have a longer life-span than giant tortoises. This is mentioned in the "maximum life span" page on this site, but surely this is relevant to this article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.141.254 (talk) 12:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This article needs a taxobox.

I suggest an improved version of this one

{{Taxobox
| image = Humpback stellwagen edit.jpg
| image_caption = A [[Humpback Whale]] 
| image_width = 250px 
| regnum = Animalia
| phylum = Chordata
| classis = Mammalia
| ordo = Cetacea
| subordo = Odontoceti or Mysticeti}}

98.166.139.216 (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I like it. Make it so. PatrickLMT (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Dolphins

The Whale page explicitly states that "whale" does not refer to members of the dolphin family, which is not clearly true in either common or professional use of the terms. Dolphins are classified as toothed whales, and often referred to as a small variety of whale. Further, separating out the dolphins while leaving related species like the sperm whale under the heading "whale" makes no taxonomic sense, the sperm whale is far closer related to a dolphin than it is to a blue whale. If they are just trying to imply that "whale" in common usage does not apply to dolphins, then they should also note common use DOES classify killer whales as whales. As written, the article could be quite misleading to individuals not versed in the relationships between "whale", "toothed whale", "cetacea" and "dolphin" and the way these words are used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.56.251 (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this is an atrocity, the intro is complete junk. This article is seriously self contradictory, with the idea of excepting the small toothed whales from the whale category, while including toothed whales in the “Origins and taxonomy” part of the article. The intro uses what I would call “colloquial terms” rather than scientific terms, and is at odds with the other parts of the article, and also completely at odds with the separate “Toothed whale” article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.50.125.80 (talk) 11:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

So there's a factoid floating around that "killer whales are actually dolphins", that is apparently widely known (although it seems that people who like to repeat it aren't necessarily very knowledgable about Cetacean taxonomy). I would like to know where this idea originated, and how it's been promoted. The whole concept depends on this weird attempt to shoehorn colloquial English terms into a scientific classification. It seems pretty clear to me that "whale" is term that can cover all cetaceans, or just the larger ones while "dolphin" and "porpoise" are terms originally specific in English to smaller cetaceans. Regardless of it's membership in Delphinidae, killer whales are more whale-sized than dolphin sized. If you go with a colloquial definition of dolphin as being small whales, than killer whales aren't dolphins. Why should the common name, "dolphins" (when dolphins are defined as not being whales, in contrast to the scientific fact of their membership in Cetacea) than be mapped onto the scientific classification as "all Delphinidae". If a member of the Delphinidae is big enough, I see no reason why it couldn't be considered a whale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.104.39.2 (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Whale kill processing & whale meat

Anyone have anything on the processing of those whales actually killed and processed ? What body parts are used and how ? It is used in which dishes and how much does it cost ? Will be mainly Japanese data. Anything on the actual real economics of whaling, cost of the whale fleet, cost of bringing a single whale carcass in, actual financial returns in the market ? I would be surprised if they are breaking even. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LucaSignor (talk • contribs) 18:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

beached whales

Is this from to much 'seal slaughter' as they beach to catch them, are they being thrown of course and / or seeing small animals possibly people on beaches and trying in bulk to get food? as the oceans become more and more empty this seems to be growing in occurences is it 'like starvation/malnourishment' of humans they become disorientated and then beach.

For also ocean floors are being ripped apart thus their 'map' could be gone from prior year etc if they use rememebered sonar for travel. For also 'sharks' apprently are travelling closer in for food.

Kerrie Matthews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.170.196.194 (talk) 02:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

anonymous user: Well, no offense, but the mass media have a way of exaggerating these kind of things. The seal-hunting/fishing/whatever industry isn't exactly a massive corporate growth area. Most - actually, all - of this is being done by local Eskimos, Aeluts, and other natives for food and clothing. There are no other commercial uses for seal products, seal fur as a luxury item went out of vogue before ever going into vogue, and there is no mainstream demand for seal meat. Most of the seal-based products never even leave town.

Furthermore, those actually catching and clubbing the seals are, as I said, mostly native Eskimos and Aeluts. As a part of their traditional culture, they actually have a tremendous respect for the animals they kill, and use every part of the seal. All edible portions of the animal (even the eyeballs) are prepared in various local dishes, the fur is used for clothing, and I have also heard unconfirmed reports of seal-bone sculpture and weapons. So there aren't large amounts of seal carrion floating around to confuse starving, delusional whales.

Even if there were lots of seal carcasses lying around - well, it might account for the beachings of (carnivorous) toothed whales, but the vast majority of whale species that beach are the krill-eating baleen whales. Also, how exactly are the ocean floors being "ripped apart"? Deepwater trawls? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.6.110 (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding New Source

Hi everyone, I am a high school student that really needs help on doing a final project for Oceanography. to help me, please add:

http://jcmigrations.com/Miriam/Whaling2009.htm

to the sources under this page. (after looking at it to make sure you think it is apropriate). Thank you for reading this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.229.202 (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Definition

It's kind of sad when you have to define a word by saying what it's not instead of what it is. This is easier for linguists than it is for zoologists. The English word "whale" refers to any fish-shaped mammal over a certain size. You could discuss the history of the word from the OED, briefly, and detail what is meant, exactly, by "fish-shaped" in this case, instead of actually saying "fish-shaped", and what exactly that certain size would be, and that would be a clear and accurate definition of "whale". Doing so would give you a perfectly accurate and positive definition of the word "whale".

Then, if you like, you could talk about how zoology has learned that some are more closely related to non-whales like dolphins than they are to other whales, and make that perfectly clear, and then give your current taxological negative definition and have explained why zoologists arrived at it. If you want. That would be interesting and helpful, but not necessary in the introduction. As it stands, "everything in this catagory that is not these" is a pretty weak way to define a word. Imagine you really didn't know what a whale was and you read it this way as opposed to my way. Which would be more helpful? Chrisrus (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If I ask you why a beluga is a whale but a pilot whale is not, you will say because a beluga doesn't belong to the Dolphinae, and the pilot whale does. But that is only true because pilot whales share a close common ancestor with the dolphins, and the pilot whale's common ancestor with the dolphin is somewhat further back. It has nothing to do with the actual physical differences there happen to be between the two. These zoological groupings were created for a specific purpose, sorting out the relations between things, and not for naming things based on what they actually happen to be. Where these come into conflict, as with the order "Delphinidae", the tendency, for complicated but understandable reasons, the zoologists' solution is to tell the English-speaking world that it is and always has been wrong: this creature is not what your senses tell you it is, it is in fact something else. This is not "scientific" in the sense of "proven fact", but just a perspective, a point of view, a way of looking at the world. Also, it sometimes results in meaningless absurdities, defining things by saying what they are not instead of what they are, or more dangerously, scientific statements being ignored or brushed off as meaningless. Chrisrus (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

But the English definition of "Whale" isn't just "large marine mamals"; it's "large marine mamals of a particular sort." How do we know what sort? We ask the people who know about this kind of thing, namely, biologists. I don't think there's anyone better placed than biologists to tell us what is and isn't a whale; if that means that something we previously thought was a whale turns out not to be a whale, so be it.VoluntarySlave (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the English definition of "whale" isn't just "large marine mammal" as I said before and will say again now, it has to have what I called a "fish shape" for short, but would have to be detailed, the horizontal tail and such, in the article, so that it wouldn't include very large extinct marine mammals that had things like their articulated necks, and leggish limbs, and alligatorish tails.

Second, who is to say what any word means? What expert do we rely on to define the word "chair" or "bottle" or "lap-top" or "house" or whatever? Reference books just analyze them as they are used in context. Writing definitions (try it with words like "bottle") can be a lot more difficult than you might imagine, but it's a big part of what writing an encyclopedia article is. Look at articles like chair for example.

What you are referring to is the distinction between a technical term and a general term. With words like "giraffe" and "Giraffa", there is no conflict between the two, but with words like "whale" and "vulture", there is. Biologists have complete control over terms like "cetacean" because they invented it and they use it for their purposes, and so it's for them to say what that word means, but not "whale" because it's not a technical term invented by experts. Actually, there is no technical synonym for "whale". Common terms don't always have corresponding technical synonyms. This article tries to define a common term with technical terms and in this case, there's no way to do that in a positive way, so it ends up defining them by saying what it is not, and here I arrive back to the top of this section, where I discuss why this is lame and try to point to a way to improve it. Chrisrus (talk) 04:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia, and this article is a zoological one. The aim of the article is to define and describe whales, not to discuss the niceties of language that lead to some minor confusion about what is and is not a whale. There might in fact be a case for introducing a separate section discussing this, but there is no reason to confuse the reader by inserting misinformation in the opening paragraph. Whales have often been described as fish. Would you like the article on fish to change the definition of "fish" so that it includes whales? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.144.174 (talk) 07:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

What kind of a question is this? As I have said before several times, and from the beginning, and as everyone knows, a whale is by definition a mammal. The point of your question is unclear, and seems to be designed to either mis-characterize my position or betray that you have not understoood. I am saying that what is needed is a positive, correct definition of the word "whale" instead of what we have now, which doesn't say what a whale is but rather what it is not. If you want to ask such questions, I will ask you whether we should list everything else a whale isn't.

I will say, however, that I am interested in your suggestion of a separate section and ask you to describe this idea in more detail. Chrisrus (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Positive Definitions:

Oxford Condensed: "a very large marine mammal with a horizontal tail fin and a blowhole on top of the head for breathing."

American Heritage: "Any of various marine mammals of the order Cetacea, having the general shape of a fish with forelimbs modified to form flippers, a tail with horizontal flukes, and one or two blowholes for breathing, especially one of the very large species as distinguished from the smaller dolphins and porpoises."

Encarta: a large ocean mammal that breathes through a blowhole on the top of its head and has flippers, no hind limbs, and a flat horizontal tail. Its body is insulated by a thick layer of fatty blubber beneath the skin, and many species live in social groups, communicating by sound.

Marriam Webster's Cetacean, especially : one (as a sperm whale or killer whale) of larger size. Cambridge: a very large sea mammal that breathes air through a hole at the top of its head

Wiktionary: Any of several species of large sea mammals

Webster's New World College: 1.any member of either of two orders (Mysticeta and Odontoceta) of aquatic mammals that breathe air, bear live young, and have limbs that have been modified into flippers, and a flat, horizontal tail 2.any of the larger members of these two groups, excluding the porpoises and dolphins (except for the killer whale)

Infoplease: any of the largest of marine mammals, with a body shaped like a dolphin or porpoise, flippers in place of forelimbs, and a flat, triangular tail.

Dictionary Dot Com: any of the larger marine mammals of the order Cetacea, esp. as distinguished from the smaller dolphins and porpoises, having a fishlike body, limbs modified into flippers, and a head that is horizontally flattened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs) 15:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, guys, but despite the number of resources that seem to want to make a distinction between dolphins and whales, the fact remains, dolphins ARE whales. Dolphins belong the suborder odontoceti, meaning "toothed whale," as do Orca, Pilot Whales, porpoises, etc. Moreover, sperm whales belong to the exact same suborder. Are you going to try and tell me that one species of odontoceti is a whale and the other isn't? And anyway, these dictionary definitions seem to create more ambiguity than resolving. The American Heritage and the "Marriam [sic] Webster," as well as dictionary.com refer to the "especial" reference of the very large variety, not to the exclusion of the smaller ones. (And let's not forget, dictionaries do NOT define scientific terms. Dictionaries only define according to common usage. Webster's New World College actually SUPPORTS the contention that dolphins are whales as dolphins belong to the suborder "odontoceta," and then contradicts itself with the second alternative definition, insisting that only the large members of odontoceti are included. Does anyone else think it somewhat idiotic to insist that not all members of the same suborder are whales...just the big ones? I think Freud would have a field day with this size fetish. If someone doesn't want to fix that moronic first paragraph, I'll do it myself. We Wikipedians should strive for accuracy, not stoke the common misconceptions. PatrickLMT (talk) 13:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it myself. If someone wants to polish it up, I'd appreciate since I'm not exactly pleased with it. But at least it's accurate. Unlike that monstrosity I removed. PatrickLMT (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Can a person of a suiatble position please reverse the vandalism of "whale" being replaccced by "‘‘‘Jordan’’’"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip of Montferrat (talk • contribs) 12:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)