Jump to content

Talk:Whale meat

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

Still working on it

[edit]

I'll be back to fix it up. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Negative views???

[edit]

This article currently ignores all possible negative views on eating whale meat and fails to mention that many whales are endangered and that catching whales for food is carried out under the cloak of "scientific research". That Greenpeace is quoted solely as saying that whale meat is carbon-friendly, even if true, is shocking in its onesidedness since Greenpeace surely has said far more against the whale trade than for it. I'll stick a POV tag on this until others weigh in with their views and a consensus appears. Malick78 (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've covered some negative views in the Pathology section. Catching endangered whales should be under whaling. This is about meat. But, if you can fit it in to this article nicely, I'm fine with it.
As for the carbon-friendly bit, yes, it could use some balance. I suggest leaving it in, but adding content on the other side of things. It's up for DYK, so it would be great if the tag's gone soon. Please help "neutralize" the article if you can. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of the reference indicates that Greenpeace does not say it is carbon-friendly. My guess is that the difference would be insignificant given that there is probably a practical limit to wide-scale whaling. In other words, I don't think that production of whale meat could ever replace enough beef to make a significant impact on CO2. IMO, it shouldn't be included. -- Lateg (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Catching endangered whales should be under whaling" - well, no. If the whaling is done primarily for the meat (and it is), then it's part of this article. I've amended some of it already, but am busy so if others could expand what I've done it'd be great.
Anti-whaling section is actually pretty good. I actually think you're right about the need for that info. I'm just trying to think of a way to keep it well connected to meat, and not to stray into whaling too much. But I guess it fits. Consumption of the meat causes harm. If we ate panda, there would be a section on the fact that there are only six left, and that we should probably only eat four of them.
Love the species hunted section. Hope it gets bigger.
History section is nice. The nuke testing bit has nothing to do with the meat though.
All in all, and improvement to the article. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tried hard to find a way to make the anti-whaling section directly connected to whale meat. I can't. Apple picker section in an Apple article, sure. Whaler section in whale article, sure. Whaler section in whale meat article is two degrees away. It's a reach. Anti-whaling might be best as a see also.
Lateg: Article doesn't say carbon-friendly, nor does the source. The statement is accurate. Whether or not it will make a global impact does not detract, nor is required to make the point "article-worthy". IMO Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nuke section is relevant since they wanted to commercially rear whales to provide meat. N'est pas?
    • Whale meat is controversial. How do people react to the slaughter of whales for it? By staging anti-whaling processes. It seems to be a direct link to me... :) Malick78 (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A tad stretchy. But okay. I guess if the article fills out with more info about the actual meat, it will be fine. I'm sure you can understand my concern that the article doesn't slip away from its focus on the actual meat, and drifts first into whaling, and then into anti-whaling. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Three or four sentences in a long article is hardly overwhelming it with extraneous information. It's providing a modicum of balance. Prior to my edits it seemed as if whale-meat was an entirely uncontroversial food - something which was far from true. I think the article is improving :) Malick78 (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7 Degrees of Whale Bacon

[edit]

The scope of this article is difficult to decide.

Like dog meat, it is different from beef because is a controversial.

In beef, for example, the article doesn't go into ranching, nor is slaughterhouse even mentioned. Not even in See also (It should be and I will add those, I think). Feedlots are mentioned in two sentences (bluelinked), only as a neutral fact, regardless of controversy, scale, or impact.

Dog meat, however does go further. So, what about whaling and anti-whaling?

I think levels of inclusion (in my view) are roughly as follows:

  • 1 Own section with paragraph or more
  • 2 Own section with { { main } } and sentence blurb
  • 3 See also item
  • 4 Mention in article bluelinked

So what does whaling deserve in a whale meat article? I think: 2*Own section with { { main } } and sentence blurb.

What does anti-whaling deserve in a whale meat article? I think: 3*See also item.

Others' views are very welcome and needed here, because that is only my opinion.

Best to you all, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is an Oscar-winning film reliable?

[edit]

Malick78 (talk · contribs) re-added the description "some whale meat sold in Japan is in fact dolphin meat packaged with a misleading label." saying "an Oscar-winning film is hardly likely to have made a huge mistake regarding this. i think we can trust it". Is an Oscar-winning film reliable? Then please respond the following question.

  1. Please provide the evidence that Oscar-nomination process include the rigorous verification of the fact.
  2. How do you think the claim without any evidence like they conducted the DNA testing is reliable?
  3. If it is reliable, please explain how the following factual errors can be included in the movie. [1]
    1. "Local fishermen are referred to as Japanese mafia."
    2. "The movie accuses the local fishermen of trying to conceal their fishing operations."
―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have to prove that everything in the film is true - it just has to be a "reliable source" according to WP criteria. I sincerely doubt you can claim that the film isn't overwhelmingly accurate. It may be biased, but winning an Oscar is a sign of general respect from the media community and suggests the film is generally reliable. If you doubt it, please provide sources saying why the film is not reliable. Furthermore, as far as I remember, the film says they did do DNA testing on the meat to show dolphin was passed off as whale. The film is of course not entirely unbiased, but I doubt they've lied about this particle detail. Malick78 (talk) 10:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, the article you cite I presume is a joke on your part. "A lawyer" says the film has errors... Are lawyers always objective in your view? Secondly, and the best part of your joke by far, your source also says "The film has stirred controversy and has won 23 awards overseas". Sounds like a bloody reliable and good quality film to have won so many accolades !!!!! :) :) :) Malick78 (talk) 10:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we can cite a report by some lacky at the Indiana Bugle, I think we can cite a documentary like The Cove. I googled "The Cove" false claims, and got something like indietravelpodcast, oprah, and a blog or two as first hits. Peanuts. I think The Cove is pretty solid. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You responded nothing to my questions and repeated the Oscar-winning film must be reliable without any evidence. How do you insist "it just has to be a "reliable source" according to WP criteria"? It is clearly WP:SPS even if it won any awards. Moreover, you calls the factual errors as joke without responding the above question. It is irrelevant to a blog. It is from an affiliate of Yomiuri Shimbun. Please provide the evidence that 23 awards overseas have anything to do with "a bloody reliable". ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then is it appropriate to add the description "The local fishermen in Taiji are all Japanese mafia." citing The Cove? ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's definitely not accurate. I've visited the place in question, and I can read a lot of the Japanese information out there. There's tons of information in Japanese contesting claims made in the movie121.116.113.155 (talk) 11:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hey, you seem to have missed the point of most of what I said above. I won't repeat myself, except to say that an Oscar-winning film is reliable until proved otherwise. You haven't done so. You quoted a "lawyer" who was far from impartial. Find better sources attacking this film and we have something to talk about. Until then, the Cove is a good source. Malick78 (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Phoenix, claiming that the Cove and Greenpeace websites are 'self-published sources' as you do above and in your edit summaries is misunderstanding the meaning of SPS. The Cove, for example, is not one person's website or a self-published book. It's a documentary made by somebody, then distributed by a multi-national corporation. So SPS does not apply at all. Malick78 (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality tag

[edit]

Ok, from the above discussions, it appears that there's already been some back and forth on how the article should be presented. Could anyone put together a list of items which need to be addressed before the tag can come off (preferably in time for the article to appear on DYK, but that's not a huge priority). GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 22:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag

[edit]

Hello folks, as expected, the POV tag on whale meat is preventing it from hitting the front page as DYK. I would really like it to make it. As you know, DYKs get thousands of hits. A whale meat DYK might get 5 thousand or more.

This would be very good for the article, as editors would improve it, and neutrality issues would certainly be resolved. Also, if you feel strongly about whale meat consumption, this is a good way for it to get exposure.

So, please, could we remove the tag? Or, if there are issues, could we remove the contentious text for the time being. After DYK, other editors will restore it or leave it out, based on consensus. I hope this seems fair. Time is short, so please act quickly. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, away with it for now :) Malick78 (talk) 10:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the citations from the Sea shepherd or Greenpeace exist, The POV tag cannot be removed. This article is not the place for the propaganda of the organizations. Moreover, the DYK referring to the "stockpile of 4000 tons" is clearly POV because ICR sharply denied the allegation. Temporarily removing and restoring the tag for DYK nomination is ridiculous. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Remove the offending text, and then remove the POV tag. If the tag is put back and the text, let's deal with that then. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Text and tag

[edit]

As the DYK is almost out of time, I have boldly removed the Environmental impact section and POV tag. I you feel like it is now so POV that it cannot stand 48 hours, fine, revert. If you can live with it, the new eyes from the DYK will help do what is best. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, sorry to unilaterally remove the tag. I did it in good faith believing that it resolves things (at least temporarily). Also, I think that two editors might debate forever over the neutrality, whereas after DYK would bring others in to quickly get it sorted out. I'm just trying to save everyone a bunch of needless talkpage keystrokes. Please instantly revert if I am out of line. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my mind and restored the tag and section. Rules are rules. Dang nammit. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, you could have left the POV tag off for those 48 hours... In my view, a section on cultural views on whale meat (i.e. those who support it, those (the majority) who are against it...) plus fleshing out the Anti-whaling efforts section would make it almost neutral. I'm busy with other things so if someone has time and starts on it I'll be happy to chip in with thoughts later... Malick78 (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did ask you to remove the tag but you didn't reply, and neither did Phoenix7777.
I'm not too interested in creating the section because I think the article is neutral as it stands. Plus, I don't want to get between you and Phoenix7777. Blowing the DYK is a real missed opportunity to sort things out. Now, with basically only 3 users paying attention, and you too busy, I expect the tag to remain for quite some time. (An RfC, I guess, will draw little attention.) I really wish you would add a quick sentence or two to merit the removal of the POV tag you added. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/Suggestions

[edit]

There is one enormous flaw in the pathology section. There is quoted an article on a webpage, instead of the research itself. Furthermore, it's the liver that contains enormous amounts of mercury, not the meat itself. That should also be mentioned.

And, the remarks from the Faroe Islands are odd, at least not cited. BBC quotes the Faroe Islands health ministry quite differently.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11113887

"It's quite wrong to use the term 'health hazard'”

Kate Sanderson Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Faroe Islands

Another problem is the use scare quotes in the intro section.

"Much of the whale meat in the world market comes from the so-called "scientific" hunting of whales, where whales are killed in order to be "studied" and their meat then sold on to consumers."

Rephrase this. "So-called" and quotes under which scientific is placed indicates judgement, which should be avoided. Overall this really does sound like someone who's very concerned about whale hunting. If that's the case, then someone neutral should pitch in.

There should not be any views in the section, with or against whaling. They should be placed in a controversy section or something similar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.246.56 (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very good points indeed. As this is a controversial subject, I would like to hear what others have to say on these matters, get consensus, then make changes. Thank you for the input. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Human consumption of whale meat is highly controversial and banned by international treaties"  ? really

[edit]

any source for this? there is no LAW forbidding consumption of whale meat! Enough of this PETA/greeenpeace bullshit propaganda! Some and i repeat SOME species of whale are classified as endangered. Not all, only some. There is no law (in USA or otherwise) forbidding consumption of whale meat! BTW Alaska (source of whale meat) its located in USA. Its just a stupid taboo and misleading tactic by "whale lovers" 71.99.92.124 (talk) 03:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, the statement is broad and probably largely incorrect. However, in the U.S., the Marine Mammal Protection Act does generally prohibit taking and importing of marine mammals (endangered or not).There are some exceptions including Alaskans, but I'd guess marketing is prohibited.http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stusfdmmpatoc.htm A summary of law and regulation about whale food production and importing around the world would be a valuable part of this article. Lateg (talk) 03:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • statement was about "LAW forbidding consumption" there is no such a law(in usa or anywhere else). AND USA is not the whole world! USA law applies only to USA! please do not mislead the readers!

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.92.124 (talk) 03:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't understand this. This person up there says "bullshit" and nobody takes exception. Instead they deign to answer this rude person. All I ever said was that with respect to "Ivan the Terrible" every Russian ruler could be called "terrible" right down to Putin. That's all I said! And I got nailed for it. This dude up there can say "bullshit" and you let him get away with it. I wasn't even rude. Didn't even swear. Wikipedia: No More Donations For You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.105.146 (talk) 07:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why would anyone donate to wikipedia? it is silly, like a grade school term paper written by a team of 10 year olds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.162 (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphin meat vs. Whale meat

[edit]

There are significant differences between dolphin and whale meats. Including taste, texture, healthiness, etc., etc., etc. Attempting to lump the two together would be like joining beef and bison meat just because both are even-toed ungulates (from which whales evolved mind you). As such, I've deleted several references to the alleged unhealthiness of "whale meat" because they are in fact not about whale meat at all. They were about dolphin meat. It continually amazes me that people who supposedly love these animals can't even tell the difference between Mysticeti and Odontoceti.66.235.11.200 (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While their taste etc may be different, what does that have to do with their healthiness to eat? Aren't beef / bison / other ungulates all about the same, from a nutrition and health point of view? Their taste isn't relevant to their health properties. Therefore your point is irrelevant, and you shouldn't have deleted that section on those grounds. It therefore needs putting back in, unless there are good reasons not to.
It would be preferable to have data on the healthiness of eating whale meat. Hasn't all that "research" the Japanese and Norwegians have been doing come up with anything yet? But in the meanwhile, the data we have available will be helpful, as long as it remains labelled properly. 92.40.254.95 (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps More Accurate to Call This Article Something Different

[edit]

I believe this article, given its title, its entirely too focused on the perceived controversy of whale eating, rather than the whale meat itself. I've recently had the opportunity to consume whale in various preparations, and I came here looking for some answers to some of my questions. Nada. How is the animal butchered? Do butchery practices vary between say Japan and Scandinavia? How is whale meat quality determined? Is there a grading system as many countries have established with beef and pork? Do different species of whales have different tastes? Why does the fat of whale have a significantly different texture than other mammals I've consumed to date? Is whale offal edible? Why are none of the preparations I've had to date listed here? I don't think they are that uncommon. Where are all the food pictures? There's only a single food picture. 121.116.113.155 (talk) 01:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary image

[edit]

Putting "slaughtering" picture is anti-whaling biased, and totally unnecessary. There is no image of cow "slaughtering" in the article of beef. Another pitfall of anti-whaling hypocrisy and their racist bias. --79.244.9.89 (talk) 13:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the including pictures of whale hunts is biased or unnecessary. How whale meat is acquired differs greatly from country and country and images may be used to illustrate that difference for the reader. Also, please refrain from calling other editors hypocrites and racists (see WP:AGF). Gobōnobo + c 17:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How cow meat is acquired also differ from countries and countries, and I see no point in putting the image. It seems to me that your attempt is just trying to spread an image that "slaughtering" whale is cruel, which is politically biased. That is your view, and Wikipedia is not the place to put your political propaganda. I suggest you to put the images of cow and pig "slaughtering" on the articles of beef and pork. Then you can prove you are at least consistent. Otherwise, you are just politically biased anti-whaling racist.--79.244.33.212 (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nutrition

[edit]

A glaring omission from this article seems to be any information on the nutritional properties of (different cuts of) whale meat. Especially what research has been done comparing benefits of the whale oil with that of 'other' fish oils? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.173.41.140 (talk) 13:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Few quick things

[edit]

"The channels through which premium cuts as the tail meat of the fin whales remains opaque."

Shouldn't that be

"The channels through which SUCH premium cuts as the tail meat of the fin whales ARE SOLD REMAIN opaque." (note no "s" on "remain").

Unless it's something about the opacity of the meat, I dunno as much about whale cuisine as I do spotting typos!

Also,

"Whalemen may have eaten blubber after rendering, which they termed "crackling" or "fritters", and were said to be crunchy like toast,[10] though these were certainly reused as fuel chips to boil down the fat."

Is blubber the skin of the whale? I thought it was the fat. Certainly, when insulting fat people, the word "blubber" is sometimes used to mean fat. If this is a popular misconception, it would be nice to add a note that it is skin, not fat. If blubber IS fat, then the sentence doesn't seem to make sense.

Since I'm not sure of the answers to my 2 questions, I won't be changing the article myself, but it would be nice for some expert to correct it.

92.40.254.95 (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toxicity - Meat vs Organs

[edit]

Why does the toxicity section cover only the toxicity of organs/innards? Mostly only the regular muscle meat is eaten, so it seems kind of irrelevant that there's so much focus on the toxicity of the organ meats but not at all of muscle meat toxicity. Also, the article mentions this includes dolphins, and that the sampling was based on toothed whales and dolphins, as opposed to baleen whales, which are the most eaten (like the minke). Those I feel are important points to note, but are omitted, and the section implies that this applies to whale meat that is generally consumed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.53.139.226 (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Trivia section

[edit]

Hey - the trivia section seems unnecessary and unrelated. Would anyone be willing to explain why it it there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.190.197.242 (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Whale meat. 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) 22:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Whale meat. 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) 16:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Whale_meat&oldid=1210952527"