Talk:Whaling in the Faroe Islands/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Oldest Sibling?

This section cites a "Guinness Book of World Records" article. As far as I can tell, the average life expectancy or fertility rate for the Faroe Islands is not directly correlated to the consumption of whale meat, and no cited source makes this claim either. Someone is trying to claim that whale meat has benefits that have not been medically proven. Shouldn't this section be removed? It doesn't belong on this page.2602:30A:2C18:28C0:E9C7:DD19:FEF0:2B50 (talk) 06:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't belong here, correlation does not equal causation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mutantarachnid (talk • contribs) 09:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Grindadráp

I don't think the word Grindadráp should be used as much as it is, in many cases hunt or drive are bether words. And i don't agree with the comment of Nua2: there is no word in english that can fully describe grindadráp. ℚuackor 01:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Great many things get lost in a translation. I don´t think there is a word in english that can fully describe grindadráp. But the english speaking public may feel it is easier to relate to the word "hunt" or "drive".Nua2

Does "grindadráp" not literally mean "whale slaughter"? I would have thought that Faroese "dráp" was etymologically related to the Icelandic "dráp" or the Swedish "dråp". I think that "whale slaughter" is a perfectly acceptable literal translation - we cannot decide what the translation of a certain word is just to make it sound less like, well, slaughter. I'm not against subsistence whaling, but I think that a non-literal translation may not serve the Faroese whale-hunting tradition well in the long run. Additionally, I do not think that the word should be used in English translation in this article. It deals specifically with the Faroese tradition of grindadráp and not with whale hunting in general. I think that the word grindadráp is acceptable, if not preferable, in this context. Pikiwedian 12:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Swedish dråp translates to 'manslaughter' in Swedish, at least in law. It may also refer to when an animal kills another animal. When a human kills another humanintenionally, it's called mord in Swedish, i.e. 'murder'. I guess Faroese dráp generally means 'killing'. The word "slaughter" sounds too strong.

Jens Persson (213.67.64.22 22:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC))

"Dráp" in Icelandic translates to English as "slaughter". I'm not sure what the exact translation from Faroese is, but I'm willing to bet that it's closer to "slaughter" than "mansluaghter". I only included the Swedish "dråp" to show an etymological connection between the words and the concepts they represent. I still think that "whale slaughter" is the mose faithful translation of "grindadráp". "Murder" and "slaughter" are not synonomous in English, for instance, cows are routinely "slaughtered" in abbatoirs, not "murdered" (although that does, of course, depend on who you're talking to....) Pikiwedian 22:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

"Slaughter" and "kill" are roughly synonymous in English and to keep one without mention of the other is not faithful translation. I don't see what "pilotwhaling" has anything to do with this definition except to make it sound less harsh.

"Slaughter" and "kill" are not totally synonomous in English - in any case, the similarity of the words in English is rather irrelevant. Rather it is conveying the meaning of the Faroese word "dráp" that is important. "Slaughter" in English may take on different shades of meaning depending on context and intent. I have a feeling that the person (hiding behind IP address 200.28.132.30) who recently added "slaughter" here: "Dráp means to kill or slaughter. Literally translated therefore grindadráp means pilot whale kill, or perhaps: pilot whale slaughter" did so in an POV sense. But I agree with the translation, and therefore think that it should remain. Pikiwedian 08:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What does "grind" mean, then? The isthmus towards the north of the Shetland mainland is called "Mavis Grind", which doesn't make it seem as if it means "whales". Deipnosophista 13:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The word grind can have a completely different meaning in the Faroes, Icelandic and Norwegian language, and probably in the Norn language too (Norn is the ancient, extinct Nordic language of the Shetland Islands). The other meaning of the word "grind" is a door, sometimes the doorway or a gate and sometimes the gateway.
eab.

"Grind" means a "pod of pilot whales" in Faroese.

Please check this impartial source about pilot whaling written by the American scientist Russel Fielding, who has been studying pilot whaling in the Faroes for many years: <a href="http://sciencenordic.com/content/researching-whaling-faroes">http://sciencenordic.com/content/researching-whaling-faroes</a> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.77.136.200 (talk) 01:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The Faroese word "Grind" had a different meaning in older times. It meant "Door" og "Gate". I have heard that in old days it was common practice when the pilot whales were hunted into a bay or fjord, to have the gates of the church open, and when the whales had passed by the church, someone closed the church doors as a symbolic act, because the meat and blubber from the whales was very important for the households, and they hoped that the whales would not get away again after having passed by the church and after the gates (grind) had been closed. The word from the gates of the church has at some point transferred into meaning "pilot whale" (whale = hvalur, pilot whale = grindahvalur). The meat of the whale is called "tvøst", many Faroese people use the word "grind" in stead of tvøst, but tvøst is the more correct word for the meat. EileenSanda (talk) 12:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Shank?

Whaling in the Faroe Islands#Pro links to the disambiguation page Shank. That should be corrected, but as I do not understand that reference, I can't figure out how to disambiguate it. Abu ari 12:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What whale?

In the last photo in this article (which I also use in the more generic dolphin drive hunting article), I suspect the whales to be Northern Bottlenose whales, even if it says that they're pilot whales. Now, I could be wrong, but they don't look like pilot whales to me because of the shape of their head. Perhaps it's due to the angle of the photo, but they don't look like them to me. Photo of a long-finned pilot whale: http://www.ericwpreston.com/images/PilotWhale_1.jpg Photo of a Northern bottlenose whale: http://www.beakedwhales.plus.com/images/nbottlenosebw/98skbottlenose3.jpg This would also make the notion that only pilot whales are hunted incorrect. BabyNuke 13:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've had it confirmed elsewhere that these are indeed Northern bottlenose whales. BabyNuke 21:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The pictures are of pilot whales, not of Northern Bottlenose whales. Shank is incorrect I suspect in this case it means meat of poor quality. The hunt is contreversial, and many internet articles are full og mistakes. It is important to not use these as sources.--Nua2 12:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I am convinced that these are NOT pilot whales. I am not looking at internet articles, this is quite simply me saying that these are not pilot whales. Pilot whales do not have such a pronounced rostrum and have a very blunt forehead, plus tend to have a darker skin. Northern bottlenose whales DO have a more pronounced rostrum however and a more pale skin. Plus, Northern bottlenose dolphins happen to be common around the Faroe islands. So unless you can provide evidence that these are pilot whales, don't claim that they are. BabyNuke 16:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, my mistake! After looking more closely at the photographs I can tell that those aren´t pilot whales--Nua2 16:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Journalism comment

To quote wikipedia's official policy: "Neutral Point of View (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, that is, they must represent views fairly and without bias."

Right now, the article states that many journalists reporting on the issue are ignorant. I feel that only if you could provide examples of common false statements made in the media, this would be an acceptable statement. BabyNuke 19:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you're obviously very reluctant to see that comment go, which I feel makes this article deserve a POV stamp. I'm not gonna fight some edit war over it. BabyNuke 09:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

There have been numerous tabloid reports over the decades; quite recently there was one in the daily maile... Actually some Faroese students received death threats after the article was printed..., however the comment derives from the german article, where the exact qoute is Internationale Tierschützer kritisieren diese Jagd als grausam und unnötig, wobei viele journalistische Berichte keine Detailkenntnis der Fangmethoden und wirtschaftlichen Bedeutung aufweisen. Meaning: " International animal rights organizations critisize the hunt for being cruel and unnecessary, whereby many journalistic reports do not exhibit a detail knowledge of the catch methods and economic meaning"--Nua2 13:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is that this comment portrays negative journalism as being based on ignorance, hence it hardly being a "neutral" statement. Before making such a claim, get some evidence, like articles obviously showing ignorance in reporting. BabyNuke 14:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I am very well aware of the point that you are making.

In the 1980´s most journalistic reports where based on ignorance... It is problematic finding these older articles nowadays, but still their are articles being printed that represent Faroese people as barbarians, which simply isn´t the case. I am sure I will find an article to prove my point. --Nua2 11:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The current news article linked to deals with dolphin drive hunts in Japan. I don't see why it is an example of ignorant reporting on whaling on the Faroes. BabyNuke 12:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Faroese language

Do we really need this many words in Faroese in the English wikipedia? I understand the use of some, such as Grindadráp, but it should just be mentioned at the beginning and then not needed again. As for almost every other word, it really isn't necessary and it just makes it seem as if the article is designed for people to understand the Faroese language and not to deal with Whaling in the Faroe Islands. There is a lot of text here but i think that it needs to be worked on to get it better. C hris_huh^talk 10:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"pilot whale" vs "Pilot Whale"

Someone has capitalised almost every instance of "pilot whale". This surely can't be correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pikiwedian (talk • contribs) 10:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

As per wikiproject Cetaceans, species names are to be capitalized. BabyNuke 11:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

OK - I'm not a zoologist, so I was a bit unsure of the convention. You learn something new every day! Pikiwedian 11:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Usually species names arent capitalised anyway in zoology, just in wikiproject cetaceans C hris_huh^talk 12:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, "Pilot Whale" has been changed back to "pilot whale". Any chance that there is a consensus view of which is correct?Pikiwedian 10:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Reversion

There has been some "NPOV" additions to this page from an unregistered user (an IP address only) - how does everyone feel about reverting the article to rectify this?Pikiwedian 09:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone went ahead and reverted it anyway! Pikiwedian 09:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Schools and Skinn

I propose that Schools and Skinn is removed from the table of whale catch, as this is of very little interest to common people. This would give the following table.

Period	Whales
1709-1950	178,259
1951-1960	18,772
1961-1970	15,784
1971-1980	11,311
1981-1990	18,806
1991-2000	9,212
2001	918
2002	626
2003	503
2004	1,010

If there is no objection to this, ill replace it, next time i am at this page. ℚuackor 16:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

=I would like that to be kept in - we cannot decide what is and what is not of interest to "common people". The aim is to be encyclopaedic, and for this reason, I would like it to be kept. Pikiwedian 11:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

As this article is entitled 'Whaling in the Faroe Islands' should we also reference other species taken in whaling?

Other Species

According to Faroese legislation it is also permitted to hunt certain species of small cetaceans other than pilot whales. These include: bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus); Atlantic white-beaked dolphin (Lagenorhynchus albirostris); Atlantic white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus); and harbour porpoise ( Phocaena phocaena).

The hunting of these dolphin species, with the exception of harbour porpoises, is done in the same way as the pilot whale hunt.

Harbour porpoises are killed with shotguns and numbers taken must be reported to the relevant district sheriff. According to statistics, the number of harbour porpoises shot on an annual basis is very low - from 0 to 10 animals.

Commercial whaling for larger whale species (fin and minke whales) in the Faroese has not been carried out since 1984.

reference: Olsen, J. (1999) KILLING METHODS AND EQUIPMENT IN THE FAROESE PILOT WHALE HUNT, NAMMCO/99/WS/2 --Polarbearzombie (talk) 11:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I updated the table Polarbearzombie (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Why does wikipedia support whaling

by featuring an article about this crime? This is purely disgusting, pointless, and removes Faroers from the species homo sapiens. These folks should all be butchered like the whales, and Denmark should be thrown out of the EU for that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.163.235.183 (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

I don't think this deserves a proper comment. ℚuackor 08:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no comment needed from such retards who believe that traditions justify massacring animals. The quality of a human can be seen in his treatment of other creatures, and these folks clearly fall short of the designation human.

Tradition never warrants abuse. But before you get on your high horse, do you eat meat? And even if you don't - I'm sure you are aware that in pretty much every western nation animal abuse is rife for the sake of a cheap hamburger. It's not just the Faroe Islands. BabyNuke (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

(Groan...) I'll bet that person DOES eat meat, and even if they didn't, they don't think it 'removes' such meat-eaters 'from the species homo sapiens', nor that they should 'be butchered like (the animals they eat)'. Sorry for this comment, as it's off-topic (not about the article), also it's fairly old... but what is it with those type of people? Have they not one ounce of intellectual honesty? Jonathanmills (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In any event, saying Wikipedia 'supports' something just because they have an article about it is beyond ridiculous. They must support animal-rights extremists too, then, because they have articles about them! Jonathanmills (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The quality of a human is how one treats other humans. At least, that's what the Greeks thought. I suppose enviromentalist dogma has transcended the norm of reciprocity by now accepting all animals into human ethics. I cannot wait for the article on arachniphobia to explode in debate regarding racism against spiders being falsely supported by neurology. 75.16.239.6 (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This article does not support an objetive point of view and must be rewritten completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.39.192.241 (talk) 06:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Just imagine something like this or "corrida de toros" was part of the mid-eastern culture! you western people would call us savages! but when these things happen in western world, it's just part of your culture!!! 115.135.145.14 (talk) 03:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

New Literature

Joensen, Jóan Pauli (2009). Pilote Whaling in the Faroe Islands - History Ethnography Symbol. Tórshavn: Fróðskapur. Faroe University Press. ISBN 978-99918-65-25-6. ["Rit og Rák"]
Joensen is president of the Faroe University, leading specialist since decades, and this issue is really up-to-date in 2009!--Maðurin (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Pilot or bottlenose whale

I've just changed the image captions of a couple of images, including File:Killed pilot wales, faroe islands.jpg which stated it was of a bottlenose whale. If that is indeed true, we should have it renamed at commons. --Swift (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I just noticed topic above from July, 2006. It would be nice if this were clarified at the source. We're all one big happy Wikimedia family after all. --Swift (talk) 01:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

As opposed to the intro I note that we currently have,

Animal-rights activists argue that the grindadráp is not only cruel, but in view of the ample food supply in today's Faroes, completely unnecessary. Additional argumentation is supplied by the Faroese Ministry of Health, which warns of excessive consumption of pilot whale meat, since it has been shown to contain high levels of mercury, PCBs and environmental poisons.[18][19] In practice this means that pilot whale meat and blubber can only be safely consumed once a month by the Faroese, a much smaller quantity compared with previous decades.

I checked the New Scientist report on this at http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16159-faroe-islanders-told-to-stop-eating-toxic-whales.html and it reports that 'Chief medical officers of the Faroe Islands have recommended that pilot whales no longer be considered fit for human consumption, because they are toxic - as revealed by research on the Faroes themselves.....But today in a statement to the islanders, chief medical officers Pál Weihe and Høgni Debes Joensen announced that pilot whale meat and blubber contains too much mercury, PCBs and DDT derivatives to be safe for human consumption.

This sounds like guidance NOT to eat Pilot Whale meat; not 'to only reduce' consumption. If anyone knows more I would be pleased to hear, else I'll add the wording from the New Scientist piece as a reference. --Polarbearzombie (talk) 11:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You're correct. The first quote is outdated and should be edited to in light of the new sterner stance of the Faroese Medical Authorities. It used to be a recommendation to reduce consumption of any whale derived food, and a recommendation that pregnant women not it it at all. Now it is a recommendation against anyone eating any at all. It's still not a ban though (just to be clear). Sammi84 (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Cheers Sammi84, I have made the change, plus also referenced it from the quote about tourists potentially eating whale meat. Polarbearzombie (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a factual error here. The book "2 minutes" does not refer to the time to death of a single whale, but the time to death of the whole pod from the killing begins to the end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.77.136.200 (talk) 01:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I added the reference to China legally executing Tibetan disodents. Anyone feel like the debate? Since after all, the law of one country does not make the activity it supports right. I therefore will move to strike the entire argument (which is uncited) that the whale slaughter is "legally supported" if someone opposes my entry about China.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 06:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

What about the species?

So what's the situation with Northern bottlenose whales (Hyperoodon ampullatus). Are they being killed or aren't they? Is there an online version of the regulation? The species list is not consistent with the pictures?

To me Hyperoodon ampullatus at least questions the rhetoric on the sustainability of Faroese whaling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.129.183.2 (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Small number of bottlenose whales were killed (22 in 10 years), in all cases whales were stranded, not hunted for intentionally, see http://www.whaling.fo/Default.aspx?ID=7125 --M5 (talk) 11:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It's non-commercial yet has economic significance?

Does that not make sense to anyone else? 184.96.206.16 (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Despite the Faroese claims to the contrary, the grind IS commercial. Evidence over the past year 2010-2011 shows sales of whalemeat at the various harbours, whalemeat is on sale in restaurants, if locals have an excess of whalemeat in their own freezers they sell it to others who want more...money changes hands for the product: therefore it is commercial. (WDCS, Sea Shepherd) As well as this, the Faroes is importing whalemeat from Iceland for consumption. (WDCS) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.196.12 (talk) 11:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It was a good call to bring that into the talk page.

Yes. It is of economic significance, within the context it represents up to a quater of the domestic meat production.

Local sale of the meat is a redistribution of a good that otherwise would be wasted.

However, beyond that limited context, whale meat is not of significant economic importance, because it is not exported.

The article should reflect this, but finding sources will be difficult.

I think I have a book that states what part of domestic meat production whales represent.

--OO(talk)(useless text here) 13:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC) No, it's still not commercial. Commercial doesn't mean "they sell parts of the animal at some point", it means it's designated purpose. The purpose is SPECIFICALLY to FEED THE ISLAND. Without it the islanders have 30% less food that they don't get back. It's the definition of not commercial. 106.68.160.207 (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Deleted for irrelevant yet provocative comment. This section used to improve the quality of this article. Don't start another comments war here.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Whaling in the Faroe Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Whaling in the Faroe Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Whaling in the Faroe Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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: 18 January 2022).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality check

I feel like this article needs to be checked by someone who is very experienced in neutrality. Some of the things written feels like trivial stuff that needs expansion too to be relevant.*Treker (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean the text which you removed and I re-added? The text about the pollution of the whales and that even thought scientists have found mercury and other pollutants in the pilot whales is does not (yet) show in statistics, the Faroese people live long - longer than Danish people, and Faroese women get more children in average than most women in Europe. I think that it is important to mention here, because organisations like Sea Shepherd tell the world that the Faroese people kill pilot whales for fun and that they are so polluted that the meat is not safe to eat. There are food regulations in the Faroe Islands which tell pregnant women to avoid food from pilot whales because it may harm their unborn child (foetus or embryo). The whale is not killed for fun, only for food. The blood from the whales turnes the sea blood red for a few minutes, it upsets people to sea photos or videos from the hunt, it would also upset them if they saw bloody pictures from slaughterhouses, all animals bleed a lot while they are slaughtered, the special about pilot whaling is that they can't be taken to a slaughter house, they are killed on the beach. The laws have changed several times these last years in order to improve the methods in order to become more humane, but it will never satisfy people who are against pilot whaling if they are against because they consider the whales like a human being, and I think that is what they do, their main arguments against the pilot whaling in the Faroe Islands is that the pilot whale is intelligent, self aware, here is a quote from Paul Watson from Sea Shepherd's website: "Taking the life of an intelligent, self aware, wild, sentient being is murder". I think that is it important that people who hear or read anti-whaling propaganda from Sea Shepherd can read about both sides of the story here on Wikipedia. I don't mind if anyone checks this article for POV. I have tried to write as neutral as possible, when I write on Wikipedia. I have not written all of the text here, there are many different people who have written this article. Kind regards --EileenSanda (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

No. The content which I removed seemed irrelevant because there was nothing in the text that connected it to why any of it had anything to do with Whaling at all. The fact that the two oldest sibling are from the Islands is completly trivial. I do notice now in heighsight that I have may have removed content which wasn't trivial (like high fertility rate and longevity in general) due to the fact that it was under the same section. That was my mistake.

When you added it back the way you worded it made it feel like it was an attack on Sea Shepared. It's not important to wikipedia who point out werther Sea Shepared is doing is propaganda. That's your interpretation. (Which may very well be true) If you can find a reliable nonpartist source which very specifically discusses the fact that they are spreading propaganda feel free to add it.

I certainly don't think the people on the Islands are doing it for fun and I don't think there is anything inherently bad with hunting anything for food so please don't interpret this in any way as an endorsement of the organisation or an attack on you. This is a controversial topic and I think all such topics should be checked regularly.*Treker (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The siblings are 12 not two. They have been eating traditional Faroese food including whale meat and blubber, and none of them has been poisoned yet from the food from the whale meat or blubber and now they are the oldest sibling in the world. Trivia perhaps, but it kind of contradicts the scientific facts. One should think that Faroese people lived shorter than non-whale eaters. I agree with most of what you write here, but I dHave not written in the article that Sea Shepherd makes propaganda, O wrote it only here on this discussion page. They are convicted of braking the Faroese grind law snd gotes fines, which they refuse to pay. EileenSanda (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not the fact that you did not outright wrote that Sea Shepherd that makes propaganda it's the fact that that was clearly what you were implying, that is why I removed the first sentence after you added the section back. I completely understand that you aren't happy with them if what you say is true but you still can't add stuff like that unless you have a very reliable source which supports it. Also, oldest siblings thing doesn't disprove any facts, the fact that the Islanders have a long lifespan in general could be used as a counter argument. The text did not make it very clear the number of siblings, but you are right, it was incorrect of me to assume that they were just two.*Treker (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

An article on greenglobaltravel.com with the title "Faroe Islands Whale Hunting - Culture vs. Conservation" (Wikipedia does not approve of the link, so perhaps this was not a good example) discusses the pilot whaling in the Faroe Islands. The author is against it and believe it should stop. Quote: "To be clear, Green Global Travel does not condone the killing of Pilot Whales. We believe that what was once a cultural tradition necessary for survival is now an outdated practice, and an unnecessary loss of life considering the meat is not suitable for human consumption. We strongly believe in advocating for an end to the whale hunts." But she also thinks that Sea Shepherd only makes it worse with their campaigns. She continues: "The problem is that provocative anti-whaling activist campaigns (such as those mounted by Sea Shepherd) have proven counterproductive, merely strengthening the desire of diehard Faroese nationalists to hold on to their cultural heritage. Activists insist that the Faroese are morally wrong to slaughter cetaceans, whalers take issues with outsiders trying to dictate how they should live or what they should eat, and the result is more polarization on the issue." I agree with this point of view, the method of Sea Shepherd to stop whaling in the Faroes has made several Faroese people who were beginning to think that perhaps it was a good idea to stop the whaling, if it was not safe to consume the meat and blubber of the whales, to change their mind again and become pro-grindadrap, provoked by foreigners who tell them what to eat and not to eat, and because the whale meat and blubber is an important part of the Faroese food tradition, it is for free, it is local, sustainable, and the whales live a free and happy life until just before they get killed for food on a Faroese beach. The pilot whale is not threatened, quote from spectator.co.uk: "According to the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Conservation Organisation, pilot whales number more than 750,000, and each year the slaughter is estimated to take less than 0.1 per cent of the population.". It is not illegal to kill the pilot whales for food in the Faroe Islands. Sea Shepherd claims that it is illegal, because it is not legal in the EU. The Faroe Islands is not a part of the EU, even though Denmark is and the Faroe Islands along with Greenland are parts of the Danish Realm. The Berne Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats does not apply to the Faroe Islands and Greenland. Denstoredanske.dk also mentions that it does not apply to the Faroe Islands and Greenland. The Commission of the EU also says the same in a written answer in 2015. Theinertia.com writes a critical article about Paul Watson and the Sea Shepherd in 2012, written by Tetsuhiko Endo. Paul Watson wrote on his Facebook-page once, and was quoted by several medias and private persons, that Anders Behring Breivik from Norway was inspired by the whaling in the Faroe Islands when he committed the mass murder at Utøya. Paul Watson says about the Faroese that they are "blood-thirsty killers" . This article in the Huffington Post says: "Last year, bloodthirsty Faroe Islander’s murdered 1,104 long-finned Pilots." Is it correct to use to word "murder" about an animal? The English Wikipedia says about murder: "Murder is the killing of another human being without justification or valid excuse, and it is especially the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought." So the pilot whale is a human being according to Huffington Post and Sea Shepherd? If it was correct, that the Faroese people were bloodthirsty, one would expect very high crime in the islands. There were no murders in 23 years and the first murder to occur after 23 years was committed by a Croatian national who lived in the Faroe Islands. Since then there has been another murder committed by a Faroese man, but still, not a very high rate of murders. I would call it propaganda, when someone call a whole nation bloodthirsty murderers when there was no murder for 23 years. EileenSanda (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I personally believe that the unjustifiable killing of any living thing is a murder, but killing for food to survive is not unjustifiable. I'm not going to comment on werther whaling on the Islands is necessary today or not because I'm not sure.

I think it would be great if you added some of this to the article. Good job finding this.*Treker (talk) 11:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Whaling in the Faroe Islands. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 19:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Whaling in the Faroe Islands. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 16:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Whaling in the Faroe Islands.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk about the talk

Reading both the whaling page and the Talk page is disturbing. The whaling page needs to be edited, not for political correctness - although it is very clearly written by someone that supports the whaling practise of the islands. The issue is that the page is a) badly written b) unprofessional in tone and c) clearly does meet wikipedia standards. Perhaps the primary contributor should be temporarily blocked from making further additions as the page is far too long and reads like a personal project than a serious, professional - neutral - encyclopedia entry.

previous paragraph added 21 June 2020 by anonymous user 2001:bb6:2ddc:6c58:fded:3707:f828:3697

Agree. A large addition on 28 May 2020 hurt the previous encyclopedic and factual tone, so it may be helpful to review the version before that and pick up all useful changes since then. Kim9988 (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Obstructive editing against Wikipedia norms

This article is terribly written, too expansive and not up to date, but also, it seems, zealously guarded by individuals who want no new information, i.e.: no news, to be added - creating the aberration that we have today: a Wikipedia article not doing its job and lost in time. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: A key Wikipedia norm is to discuss the change on the talk page by providing rational arguments based on policy or reliable sources for (or against) the change and thereby reaching a consensus. If that fails, you can seek dispute resolution. Regarding your specific edits and comments above, it's also worth noting that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper – see WP:RECENTISM. — LauritzT (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Some very convenient arguments for obstructing new material. Note the point in WP:RECENTISM about avoiding OVER-burdening articles with news. One sentence on a particularly notable hunt, sourced from three, separate major news outlets, is not overburdening anything. If anything, this article is under-burdened with such information. Discussion is meant for resolving controversial or disputed information; it is not supposes to be used as a tool for stalling the addition of every last bit of widely reported, newsworthy information. This recent news even resulted in the launch of an official government review, so it is not even just news with substantial coverage, but news with a demonstrable and concrete outcome. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: Please take a look at the dispute resolution page. — LauritzT (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

The fact that you are only interested in discussing procedure, not content, says a lot. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Iskandar323: I have not been involved in the content dispute at all except for the sentence above where I tried to summarize what appeared to be the concerns of the other editors and trying to get you to discuss the change. As far as I can tell, you have not yet made any arguments for its inclusion. — LauritzT (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

The arguments for its inclusion should be self-explanatory. Record hunt of a species not normally hunted en masse. Scale or order of an entirely different magnitude to typical events of the same type. 1,428 animals in a day vs 600 pilot whales a year on average. Criticism at home and abroad over lack of/inadequate preparation. Government review initiated. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Iskandar323 you are obstructing. You are just pushing here recent news you read on websites. Grindefangst is over a millennia old. It is recorded in the Sheep letter. There is no reason to include recent news on such a long running tradition, if the news is significant then it will be written up in books or maybe even a modern day saga. Until that happens, it is just hot air that blows into nothingness the next day.--CZUQZ (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC) strike sock

That particular perspective has got nothing to do with how Wikipedia actually works. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

"Our tradition is old, so all news about it pales into insignificance and should never be added" is precisely the problem which I am talking about, as it is such a blatant form of subject matter bias. Wikipedia articles evolve: they aren't museum pieces. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Like LauritzT points out you are engaging in Wikipedia:Recentism. You are breaking , Wikipedia is not a newspaper (also Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper). If merit this addition has we will see this in sources that yet to be written and published. Online news is of little value.--CZUQZ (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, WP:NOTNP does not mean no input from online news ever, though clearly, if you had your way, the only information ever capable of percolating through to Wikipedia would be from academic journals, safely clear of current events. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

There were many successful hunts over the years. The previous numeric highscore was in 1940 when 1,200 pilot whales were caught and this is much larger than the 2021 catch of dolphin (each dolphin is only a 1/6 of a pilot whale, so tonnage is much lower). There is no reason just to focus on the recent catch and some activist PR being churned by the media for a day.--CZUQZ (talk) 11:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@CZUQZ Why did you just rollback a dozen edits while claiming the reason was restoring sourced content? The only sourced content removed was the material on contaminant levels in birds, which is irrelevant to the article. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Thanks, I was beginning to feel really alone out here being shot down for trying to remove tourism website external links and adding triple-sourced WP:RS/PS material, only to be combatted with: News is hot air. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

My revert was more of an administrative act. The edit I reverted introduced editorializing, violating WP:NPOV. I have no view on the merits of the news sources you added. For all I know there may be a valid point about putting this news into an historical context. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Well I figured that might be the case, but I'm glad you spotted the WP:NPOV Iskandar323 (talk) 05:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)