Talk:Whaling in Iceland

Iceland High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iceland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iceland 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.IcelandWikipedia:WikiProject IcelandTemplate:WikiProject IcelandIceland articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

I've removed the section entitled 'pros and cons of whaling', since it was clearly vandalised, and not particularly funny. Chue03 12:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usually new posts should be put at the bottom of the talk page, just so you know in the future. Otherwise good job on removing the vandalism :) -Aryoc 12:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please let the article grow... it's a current event and will grow fast.--Sonjaaa 23:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about putting some content in first? --Fang Aili ^talk 23:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that sure looks like a copyvio to me. --Fang Aili ^talk 23:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, relax your unbased accusations, you guys LOL! all the content was copy and pasted from other Wikipedia articles. This is an important current event, and we need all the info in one location!--Sonjaaa 23:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.. I was wondering who puts [1] and [2] and such in their articles. Cheers, Fang Aili ^talk 23:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any problems, I invite you to help me improve and clean up the article constructively by adding to it, rather than just deleting it so I have to start from scratch.--Sonjaaa 23:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At

Yes, it is unclear that the whaling was done in Icelandic waters, so Whaling by Iceland, or Icelandic Whaling or something would be more accurate. Sad mouse 20:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should this belong as a separate article? This content is covered by whaling and International Whaling Commission and this doesn't add anything more then already stated there.--Siggiari 16:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction paragraph should be a brief headline/summary for the news, not for reciting history. Masquatto 14:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that this article may not be entirely neutral. (with a slight bias in favor of whaling?) I hesitate to make this comment because it seems like any apparent bias in this very new article may be unintentional, but nonetheless, there's definitely a need for a more detailed statement of the motivations involved on both sides, and there're a number of facts that seem erroneous.--LAR 05:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

at the risk of sounding non-neutral. All the good arguments agains whailng are there, which would be none.

Whales are supposed to be smart aren't they? That's the reason why they're "sacred" to animal rights organizations, right? However, whalers can go on hunting and killing them for hundreds of years, all on the same area? I tell you, if whales were smart they would get the hell out of there.

This is a topic that everybody feels very emotional about. Therefore it's more subjectable to POV and Vandalism. We just have to watch carefully what is happening, and try to be as unbiased as possible..--Siggiari 18:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether arguments are good or bad doesn't matter. Wikipedia is no judge. The only thing that matters is the notability of arguments. If an argument is used widely it should be mentioned. Then it's up to the reader to decide what to make of it. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 11:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has two different dates for the recent killing of a fin whale. Peter Harriman 19:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was caught on 21st of October and landed the day after, 22nd of October--Siggiari 21:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. Peter Harriman 19:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"however that has now stalled due to the immobility of the anti-whaling camp" - This doesn't isn't very NPOV, at the least this statement needs some backup.

Also: refs to the whaling convention ("The purpose of the Convention is to provide for [...] the orderly development of the whaling industry.") are not really NPOV. Their estimates do not seem particularly trustworthy, as they have a vested interest in whaling.

International Whaling Commission has a vested interest in whaling? Are you sure you know what IWC is? The IWC Secretariat, you don't get much more NPOV than that on this issue. The text you quote from (International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling) has been signed by all member countries, including staunch anti-whaling countries such as Australia, New Zealand, and UK Matt77 12:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article is obviously written by someone from Iceland, and their sentiments and opinion on whaling can be seen in every word, and between the lines. I'll point out POV or manipulative sentence structure by highlighting in bold here:

"Because of this history Icelanders have been able to successfully portray their hunting of whales as selfsustaining and responsible, just as their fishing policy is today. At the same time it is often pointed out by Icelanders that the nations that are mostly responsible for decimating the whale stocks in the oceans and are now ardent opposers of any hunting, sustainable or not, are often in bad shape with their current fishing policies, which is often unsustainable and with fish stocks in dire situations. Thus Icelanders are wary of these nations telling them what to do and see it as snobbery and a sign of how out of touch they are from nature. Iceland's was disputed widely by environmental non-governmental organizations like Greenpeace. Their claims have though been widely ridiculed at least in Iceland, because it is impossible to properly establish the eating habits of whales without looking into their stomach content. Groups like Greenpeace are widely seen as public enemy number one in Iceland, as one such, the Sea Shepherd, was found responsible for the only terrorist attack ever in the country. Kristján Loftsson, owner of the whaling company Hvalur (Icelandic for Whale) which had to diversify from its main industry for the past 20 years, (VIOLINS PLEASE?) has stated that there is no reason they can't continue hunting whales for eternity by sustainable management of the hunting. Although fin whales are considered endangered on a worldwide basis, that is not the case in Icelandic waters.[7] Their numbers in the ocean around the island have grown to a stable level. The Fin Whale population in the North Atlantic was estimated to be 23,000 in 2001, and the estimated population of Minke Whales in the North Atlantic in 2001 was said to be around 67,000 in the North Atlantic central stock region with 44,000 in Icelandic waters."
Again, I think the whole piece is obviously written from a pro-whaling point of view, and is cleverly disgusied as a non-partisan article.

I´m not from Iceland but I´ll comment here :) just as their fishing policy is today Well, Icelandic Cod stocks are just fine along with other fisheries. Norwegian Fish stocks are by and large very well managed as well ( another whaling country ) Icelanders are wary of these nations telling them what to do They most likely are - no nation likes being told what to do or do you disagree? Groups like Greenpeace are widely seen as public enemy number one in Iceland Is this true? can it be cited anywhere? if yes, then no problem, if no, then it should be removed. which had to diversify from its main industry for the past 20 years, (VIOLINS PLEASE?) you´re showing your own POV here ( and not very neutral at that )- are you disputing that Hvalur had to diversify? If so, cites/sources confirming that they did´nt have to would be welcome. Their numbers in the ocean around the island have grown to a stable level The actual figures shown are wrong ( current figure should be 28,500 ) Are you disputing the numbers? are you disputing that the level is stable? are you disputing that hunting 9 fin whales from a population in icelandic waters of 28,500 is unsustainable? or are you disputing something else? please be specific. " Again, I think the whole piece is obviously written from a pro-whaling point of view, and is cleverly disgusied as a non-partisan article " Then be bold and rewrite it from a neutral point of view, with cites and sources to back it up :) SammytheSeal 18:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've done a beter job than me already. Fact is I'm lazy, but I just felt that there was a vibe throughout the article that was kind of defensive of Iceland's whaling activities / policies. I lazily tried to point this out, but ran out of steam. I'm happy at least that there are less apathetic people than me involved in the debate. One point I will return to:
"Kristján Loftsson, owner of the whaling company Hvalur (Icelandic for Whale) which had to diversify from its main industry for the past 20 years" ... The reason I was sarcastic about this is because it is manipulative: obviously if they're not whaling, they'll have to diversify. Mentioning it is suspect, because it is manipulative. It's like saying: "After the axe-murderer was caught and sent to prison, he no longer had use for his axe skills. On his release he had to diversify and move into wood-cutting" It is redundant to state this: obviously if he has stopped murdering he will have to do something else with his spare time. The only reason (I can think of) to mention the company diversifying is to tug at the reader's heart-strings: his livelihood has gone, poor salty old sea-dog Kristján Loftsson!
In a sense, one could argue that the mere mention of this "diversifying" point in the article is proof of the non-POV angle.

I thought that was in there to make clear the point that Hvalur hf is indeed the same company as the one that was active in whaling 20 years ago. That can hardly be taken for granted can it? --Bjarki 19:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again;) " The only reason (I can think of) to mention the company diversifying is to tug at the reader's heart-strings: his livelihood has gone, poor salty old sea-dog Kristján Loftsson!

In a sense, one could argue that the mere mention of this "diversifying" point in the article is proof of the non-POV angle."

Of course, thats not the point or wish or any wikipedia article - NPOV is the bunny we want. Have a read through the Greenpeace article one day if you have the time to see what vibe that gives you - seriously ;). Fact is, the so called moratorium was designed to be lifted in 1993 - the political make up of the IWC Plenary committee is what keeps it in place, despite the recommendations of the IWC scientific commitee - Iceland were very open about their plans when they rejoined the IWC - they gave the IWC time and notice that they would resume commercial whaling if the RMP was not implemented.The fact that Loftsson is the only company hunting fins is neither here nor there - he´s taking a commercial risk, much like any other business. I´d like to see more info on the individual boats hunting minkies under scientific permit and those hunting under commercial permit - are they the same boats? Are they seperate companies / family businesses? does Loftsson have a stake? Are they competitors to Loftsson? and so on .. would be great to expand the article with such info. As I wrote above, be Bold, rewrite if you have the urge, time and energy and be prepared to have your writing edited mercilessly by others though, especially if it´s not backed up by citations and sources. ( and welcome to Wikipedia BTW ;) )SammytheSeal 20:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Thus Icelanders are wary of these nations telling them what to do and see it as snobbery and a sign of how out of touch they are from nature." Can someone add a citation or delete this sentence? its the whole point of view thing again...

Added a small mention of the bbc article from 13th March which notes that Iceland are likely to go ahead with a small commercial catch from May 2008. I´ll fill it out as and when it progresses SammytheSeal (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article in its current state does not adhere to Wikipedia's standards.

The majority of the history of Icelandic whaling is only described in terms of the most recent events with little more than a foot note about its origins. Secondly, most of the description of Iceland's whaling history has no citations and appears to express a point of view lending undue weight to Iceland's intentions as opposed to describing historical facts in a neutral manner.

I intend to restructure this article and significantly improve the amount of historical information provided, complete with citations.

The restructured article will cover -

History

1) Documented 13th century references to whaling and earlier references in sagas

2) Influence of other nations on establishment of Icelandic fisheries 19th century - 20th century

3) Early 20th century whaling ban

4) Participation in the IWC

5) Unregulated whaling prior to the 1970s

6) Establishment of national whaling regulations/quotas

7) Exports of whale product to other nations

8) Disposition regarding the IWC moratorium on commercial whaling

9) Diplomatic conflict with USA over whaling

10) Effect of boycott on whaling industry in the late 80s

11) Research whaling proposals

12) End of commercial whaling in 1989

13) Departure from the IWC in 1992

14) Return to the IWC, first as an observer then as a full member in 2002

15) Resumption of research whaling

16) Resumption of commercial whaling under objection

17) Resumption of exports to other nations

Production

18) Information on production methods & business

Scientific Research

19) Information on research produced

Opposition

20) Internal and external opposition to whaling

21) Effect of whaling on application for EU membership

22) Effect of whaling on tourism

Cetamata (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not continue making edits without a reason supported by citations or discussion in talk. In two instances so far information was removed without prior discussion and with incorrect notions that contradict cited texts on the history of whaling in Iceland. Cetamata (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) All dolphins and porpoises are in fact whales. They're toothed whales similar to the Sperm whale only smaller.

2) There is no difference between American experiments in modern whaling and Norwegian techniques other than the Americans (who did not represent the entirety of American whaling technology) were experimenting with their own rocket harpoon design. This _IS_ modern whaling in that it involves using explosives to launch a harpoon at a whale instead of rowing after a whale with hand thrown harpoons. Cetamata (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time to take this off you user page and get it fixed here.. I think it is clear that pilot whales belong in the article. The American whaling header seems weird since it also discussed a Danish guy then a Norwegian. I don't think this is something Poole should be reverting over. We could use "transitional period" but that seems unnecessary. Cptnono (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added the pilot whale thing back. They are cetaceans (so at least related) and it is a whaling technique. Its inclusion benefits the reader's understanding of the subject. Th second part needs more discussion.Cptnono (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to discuss it all here as well. However, considering that organized whaling didn't just happen in Iceland by default, in that it was introduced to Iceland from other nations, I didn't title it out according to each nation. I summarized modern whaling to mean use of powered ships and explosives as opposed to the old hand thrown spears used by the Basques and others. I don't think it's correct to spell out every whaling incident that occurred in the history of Iceland as a separate title for each nation like "Basque Whaling", "American Whaling", "Norwegian Whaling" on the Whaling in Iceland page.

As for the information about pilot whales, it's used to establish there is indeed a documented history of taking cetaceans large and small and whether its pilot whales, narwhals or Fin whales, it's all whaling because dolphins and porpoises are all whales. At the least it's a fully related subject without enough distinction to merit a separate "dolphin hunting in Iceland" article. Cetamata (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Powered ships and explosives seems like a good place to start a "modern" section. This really is silly because it is over an organizational issue. Is having the American technique better in its own subsection? I really don't know but could see it being over doing it with section headers. However, it could be a "transitional period" as Poole mentioned on your talk page. I still don;t understand why it has caused so much frustration.Cptnono (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's just two editors butting heads over the article in the end I suppose. It seems more appropriate to me under the modern whaling heading as I originally added it to the article. When I see it displayed as a lone tidbit on the history of whaling in Iceland it also seems to have some undue weight. Poole believes it doesn't represent modern whaling (powered ships and harpoon cannons) because they still fired at the whales from open boats. (never mind that the rowboats were towed out to the whales by steam ships). Cetamata (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A sentence was removed from the article and I've reverted that change. The text in question is in reference to the reasoning given for Iceland's research whaling in 2003: "would be taken under the pretense that national cod fisheries were threatened by whales."

The supporting citation is a CNN article on the subject which includes the following text: "Its government has now decided to allow a limited resumption of whale hunting both for "scientific purposes" and because increasing numbers of whales are allegedly threatening the country's fish stocks, especially cod." -and- "According to Fridrik Arngrimsson of the Federation of Icelandic Fishing Vessel Owners, which is pressuring for a resumption of full commercial whaling, the whales have diminished local cod stocks by 10-20 percent, a figure disputed by environmental groups."

Although it's possible to assume bias on the subject, the source clearly states the reasoning Icelanders used to justify this program and objections from environmental groups. I think rather than removing the text, if bias is perceived by another editor, please discuss it here. Cetamata (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I don't think the source states it's a pretense at all. Reason != pretense.--TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 10:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think to argue that the word pretense is all suitable is a bit... blatant. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 10:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am not very good at editing here, but I would like to point out a recent comment on the subject by the Icelandic fisheries minister.

Fisheries minister, Jón Bjarnason, said in a statement that the quota for Blue fins caught in the North Atlantic for Icelandic whalers for the year 2011 is 154 whales in total, out of a stock of 20.000. (See below) In the same statement it is said that the Blue fin in the North Atlantic is a much larger stock, about 20.000 (according to the fisheries ministry), whereas the Blue fin stock in the South is in much worse shape.

In the statement it is also said that these two stocks have no relations to one another. I just thought this belonged here as it's an article about whaling in Iceland. Neutrality is always an issue when it comes to matters of sentiment, and some people have a lot of sentiment about whaling.

The issue whether the Blue fin is endangered is what the fisheries ministry disputes, e.g. that there are two unrelated stocks of Blue fin whales. I therefore think that the endangered part could be clarified more, to improve neutrality.

20.7.2011 http://www.sjavarutvegsraduneyti.is/frettir/frettatilkynningar/nr/10579

Also the IWC has not expressed a formal view of Icelandic whaling, as is seen here: http://iwcoffice.org/conservation/iceland.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.246.56 (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some user removed "jackpot" as a translation of "hvalreki" in 2011, rendering the mention of the word in the article meaningless. The word doesn't literally mean jackpot, true, but if the word (hvalreki) is to be mentioned, the double meaning as both just "beached whale" and something like "something good that is unexpectedly yours or at your disposal" must be mentioned. If anyone has a better translation of the term "hvalreki" when not referring to beach whales, please edit the article accordingly. If not, and if the word and its double-meaning is a meaningless addition, remove it entirely. finval (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I just happened across this page in my wikitravels, and I have to say it's one of the better examples of how people with differing views can use Wikipedia to come up with a balanced and informative treatment of a subject.

I did, however, see a need for more wikilinks. As I read the article I came across several terms for which I needed definition or clarification. So I went through and linked countries, places, people, organizations, and whale species where they were maned in the article. I was pretty generous with my links, but I felt that was better than leaving future readers to wonder, and the convenience of wikilinks is one of the benefits of the Wikipedia format, after all.

There were also two issues of copy editing. Commas are not used in English for all appositive nouns, but rather only for words or phrases that add information but do not define the first noun. Also, types of whales are common nouns and should not be capitalized.Illexsquid (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Whaling in Iceland. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120618125028/http://iwcoffice.org:80/conservation/table_permit.htm to http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/table_permit.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120618125028/http://iwcoffice.org:80/conservation/table_permit.htm to http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/table_permit.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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.—

I have just modified 3 external links on Whaling in Iceland. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140307134214/http://www.nocompromise.org/issues/28sinkingwhalers.html to http://www.nocompromise.org/issues/28sinkingwhalers.html
• Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20090707010302/http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2006-10-17T142254Z_01_L17824455_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENVIRONMENT-WHALING.xml to http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2006-10-17T142254Z_01_L17824455_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENVIRONMENT-WHALING.xml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110107203819/http://www.wikileaks.ch/cable/2010/01/10TOKYO171.html to http://www.wikileaks.ch/cable/2010/01/10TOKYO171.html

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.

• 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) 05:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]