Talk:Exploding whale

Objections to article

Exactly what objections are contested?!? - Ta bu shi da yu 10:40, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi Ta bu. I asked the same thing at Wikipedia_talk:Featured article candidates. There were three objections originally - two about length (from Meelar and myself) and one from Mintguy about Hitchhiker's guide. The latter is definitely resolved. I withdrew my objection over length (the article has nearly doubled in size since I originally wrote that) and I imagine that Meelar will/did too.

Thus there were no substantial objections and the nomination failed for the "technical" reason that the old objections were not struck out. I inquired about promoting the article without going through FAC again, but Raul654 who is influential in this matters didn't like that.

Thus I recommend waiting a week or two and then nominating again, explaining that it failed last time only for technical reasons. (I would wait that week or so though, if we do it too quickly some people might object just they are awkward like that!) Pcb21| Pete 11:16, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK, sounds like a plan. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:40, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

All I remember from chapter 18 of the Hitchhiker's Guide was a description of a "sudden wet thud." I don't think that counts as an explosion. I know that in a later book there's mention of whale meat, but I really can't recall an explosion. Should the Hitchhiker's Guide be on the list of literary references? --Resipsa 03:40, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The sentence you refer to (page 100 of the GP hardcover edition) is: "And the rest, after a sudden wet thud, was silence". That's all it says. Amusing enough, but very clearly no mention of an "explosion". -- FirstPrinciples 04:27, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

Technically, the word 'explosion' can include a bursting or shattering of something [1]. It is clear from HHGTG that the whale didn't disintegrate whilst falling, and I doubt the chunks of whale meat were spread by scavengers. So a bursting or explosion is implied. Having said that, I don't think this section is the strongest addition to the article (even if I accidentally started the ball rolling), but it does fit in with the general unifying idea of the article. -- Solipsist 11:28, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Removal of the research centre link.

Ta bu shi da yu, why did you remove the link to research centre? I think it's a valid attition which should be kept. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:43, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)

I figure you wikified things for the sake of wikifying them. Is there any guarantee that someone is going to actually write this article? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:19, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

I took this out: "and it became a relatively well known Internet meme" because:

• The phrase "Internet meme" annoys me.
• I think it adds little in the way of content
• I think it is wrong.

Those who find the concept of "meme" useful define it as a unit of cultural transmission that replicates by imitation. It's not just "news", data transmission, or knowledge. I don't think there's been much imitation of the exploding whale, particularly on the Internet. - Nunh-huh 01:53, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, that's cool. I was just trying to accomodate suggestions by Soliphist. If others disagree, that's fine by me also. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:19, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Were it left to me, there would be no meme meme<g>. - Nunh-huh 03:04, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

lol! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:07, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rewordings, elaborations and grammar improvements

I've made some suggestions about rewordings and grammar improvements on the FAC page. I'm going to list some more here for review both to get peer review and second because i'm not sure about if some of them actually are improvements. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 10:03, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

Ævar, some very good points :) I think some of your points are most definitely valid, though some less so. Good work on spotting some of these issues... do you want to do the honours (at least on the ones we agree on)? - Ta bu shi da yu 10:17, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Section 0

There are two known incidents of an exploding whale.

There have been two known incidents of whales exploding.

Agreed. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:04, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Looking at the history i can see that it used to be like that, what were the specific objections that caused the change? -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 10:41, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

There have been so many edits to the intro that I don't think there was a specific objection to it's phrasing! - Ta bu shi da yu 21:26, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

was blown up by the Oregon Highway Division in an attempt to dispose of the rotting carcass

I think that it is more natural to say its instead of the here since the topic is the whale, that is: "as blown up by the Oregon Highway Division in an attempt to dispose of its rotting carcass"

I don't think it matters too much one way or the other. Both read as naturally as one another. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:04, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Merged to the article. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 10:47, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

when American humorist Dave Barry wrote about it in his newspaper column

when American humorist Dave Barry wrote about it in his newspaper column, [insert name of his column here (usually they have names)]

The column is referred to in the article. Do we really need to repeat this information? The lead section is only really a summary. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:04, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 10:21, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

Footage of the incident later appeared on the Internet.

Do we know where it appeared? If it was on KATU Channel 2 then that should be mentioned.

Eh? The footage definitely appeared on the Internet later. Someone transfered it into an AVI file. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:04, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No i mean on what website it appeard so something like Footage of the incident later appeared on numerous websites originating at KATU Channel 2's website (badly worded, but you get the idea). -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 10:21, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

It didn't. KATU Channel 2 only recently released the footage on their website... this happened after the footage floated around the web. Some guy (or girl) literally had a tape of the news report and digitised it! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:31, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Interesting, perhaps the origins of the video and its history should be futher discussed later in the article. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 10:44, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

The other reported case of an exploding whale was in Taiwan in 2004 when a build up of gas inside a decomposing Sperm Whale caused it to explode while it was being transported to have a post-mortem performed.

Now, i do not remember this exactly but was it not buildup of gas in some specific body part? His digestive system if i recall correctly. If so then this could be changed to something like:

The other reported case of an exploding whale was in Taiwan in 2004 when a build up of gas inside a decomposing Sperm Whale's bowels caused it to explode while it was being transported to have a post-mortem performed.

This was never stated. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:04, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Even though it was never stated one can apply some common sense, when a carcass decomposes the insides of the digestive system begin to rot emitting gases which cause the dead body to bulge out and eventually explode. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 10:21, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

Shouldn't we try to be precise and not make up facts that we believe to be common-sense? This might be wrong... - Ta bu shi da yu 10:32, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is a very recognised part of decomposition and we would not be making up any facts by stating that that was the reason for the explosion. However i have found no article on wikipedia that deals with the subject. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 11:50, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

Also, i think that while it was being should be changed to while being.. since like before we are already talking about the whale. I'm not quite sure about that though, comments?

No, "while it was being" sounds more natural. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:04, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As well as these incidents, exploding whales are a theme a number of authors have used in their works.

As well as these incidents, exploding whales have been a theme used by numerous authors in their works. <- this might be a better wording.

This doesn't really matter. Exploding whales are still a theme that they used in their currently published works. Either way sounds just as good. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:04, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It sounds wrong because first it reads are which is present-tense-ee and then it reads used which is the past tense, i reworded the whole thing to past-tense because we are discussing already published works as opposed to works being published or yet to be published. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 10:21, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

I have no objection with this rewording. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:33, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Merged to the article. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 10:47, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

Section 1

The Oregon Highway Division (now known as the Oregon Department of Transportation) had jurisdiction over beaches, and was given the task of removing the whale carcass.

They had or they have? Also though this might be obvious to anyone with half a brain i think it should somehow elaborate that the ODOT has jurisdiction over the beaches of oregon but not beaches in general.

This doesn't matter. At the time they had juristiction over beaches. We aren't talking about whether they have jurisdiction over beaches now - this detail is just not relevant! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:14, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You might not think it matters but if included it will give even more info which is always a plus. And yes it specifically says they have jurisdiction over beaches as opposed to the beaches of oregon which needs to be fixed. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 10:33, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

Two points: it's implied and known that they only had jurisdiction over beaches in Oregon - they aren't allowed to work on beaches in other states as they are the Oregon State highway division. If you want to clarify further I don't have a problem with it though... I just kind of think you'll be putting in redundant and highly obvious information into your sentence. This can make it look overly verbose. Second point: if you can definitely verify that the Oregon Department of Transportation still has jurisdiction over beaches, go for your life! Don't add it if you aren't sure though as I suspect this is no longer the case, especially after this incident. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:42, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well okey, it is implied, however this had/has issue needs to be cleared out the current version implies that they no longer have jurisdiction which may or may not be the case. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 11:24, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

The Oregon Highway Division having jurisdiction over the beaches of oregon was given the task of removing the stranded whale carcass.

No. This sounds very awkward! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:14, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I also think it reads a bit better if we use stranded here, the text is getting a bit repeative by nature since it is always discussing the same subject at this point, also the parentheses might be unneeded since the link earlier to the ODOT explains the renaming.

Not sure. Doesn't sound right to me, but I guess it wouldn't hurt. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:14, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

After consulting with officials at the United States Navy they decided that it would be best to remove the whale in the same manner as the removal of a boulder and, on November 12, they used half a ton of dynamite to blow the whale up. This decision was made because they thought that burying the whale would be ineffective, as it would soon be uncovered, and they believed that the use of dynamite would cause an explosion that would disintegrate the whale into pieces that were small enough for scavengers to clear up.

After consulting with navy officials they decided that the best course of action was to remove the whale in the same manner as a boulder is removed – by explosion. They carried out this plan on November 12 using half a ton of dynamite to blow the whale up...

You repeat the word remove - sounds awkward. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:14, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

or perhaps their plan to blow up the whale on nov12 using half a ton of dynamite

Whale in the center and the painted over areas represent whale blubber

The explosion caused large pieces of blubber to land quite some distance away from the beach

AFAIK this is factually wrong, the blubber spread over the surrounding area including the beach and an area within a large radius of the carcas. The current text implies that the blubber just landed far away from the point of the carcas but not around it.

Actually, this is correct. A large piece of whale meat landed in the carpark and smashed the car. From Paul Linnmann's transcript:

"A parked car over a quarter of a mile from the blast site was the target of one large chunk, the passenger compartment literally smashed."

Ta bu shi da yu 10:14, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I dont think you quite understand, imagine it as a circle with the whale in the centre of the circle as i've drawn on this lame diagram here. The current version says that it landed some distance away from the beach which would mean ( shown on the left ), what i want to change it to is something that says that as well as landing some distance away from the beach it spread somewhat across the whole area ( shown on the right ) -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 10:33, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

Fair enough. Perhaps we could modify the text to mention that people also got splattered with whale particles. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:42, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

also scared away scavenging birds

Wikified to Scavenger and bird? +

All the above changes sound good to me. However, I'm torn two ways on this one. The comment comes from the reporter on the Katu video, but I doubt it is true. Scavengers were most likely only scared away for an hour or two. I'm sure they would have come back once everything had quietened down the next day. However, it is a fun comment and helps to reinforce the undertone of the report — lampooning the officials. If the comment were removed, you are left with 'the bulk of the carcass remaining' and 'blubber hitting a nearby car - which is OK but breaks the rule of three, so is weaker. -- Solipsist 16:33, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Section 1.0

resurfaced later as a movie file

video file?

Definitely. :-) Ta bu shi da yu 10:14, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Merged to the article. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 11:29, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

Captions

After dynamite was used to explode a rotting beached whale, chunks of blasted whale caused spectators to flee in panic.

Used to explode? Replace with blow up also the latter part just sounds unnatural something like After dynamite was used to blow up a rotting beached whale chunks of its disintigrated carcass flew in all directions causing spectators and officials to flee in panic.

There's nothing wrong with this! "Blow up" and "explode" are the same things! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:15, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not at all, you can say i blew this up while you cannot say i exploded this. Explode refers to the actual explosion while blow up refers to the act of causing it. Hence you blow up a whale, you do not explode it. However blowing it up causes an explosion.

Blow up and Explode are examples of words in the english language that commonly mean almost the same thing but not quite, so you cannot replace one with the other in all cases, and this is one of those. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 10:38, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

Ævar, I've been speaking English all my life, and trust me: this is a non-issue. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:47, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Oregon Highway Division failed to anticipate the consequences of blasting this beached whale.

I dont know, this just reminds me of something i see on those cheap cop shows. Jim Weasel failed to anticipate the consequences of breaking the law..

I was never a big fan of that caption... - Ta bu shi da yu 10:15, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No idea how to rewrite it though. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 10:38, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

Done :-) what do you think? - Ta bu shi da yu 10:47, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Introduction

I've been trying to address the concerns raised on the featured article candidates page. I've modified the first sentence to say "Two exploding whale incidents have so far been documented worldwide." What do people think? What about the rest of the intro section? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:40, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've changed it, and I think the introduction is good now. But for the FA nomination, we should probably put more information on the literary aspects now (now that it is mentioned in the first sentence, that is). →Raul654 04:47, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure how much more I can add to this section! This section was only ever meant to be a passing reference that mentioned that exploding whales are a theme in books... it's not really central to the article. I'm more than happy to incorporate information that's given to me, however. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:07, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

I find the long quote from Douglas Adams rather unhelpful to the article, it makes the whole thing look a little too gratuitous, particularly because it doesn't describe the actual event of explosion. I know we're all Douglas Adams fans, but I'd suggest summarizing this in a couple of sentences and linking to the full text.--Eloquence*

Agreed. It rather disrupts the balance (plus it probably only just gets away with fair use). Might be better to move it to Wikiquote and replace it with a link. -- Solipsist 18:48, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The quotes have now been removed but nothing links to the full text, could this be fixed? -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 18:28, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)

Sorry for the lengthy period of time for me to respond. I'm unsure the best way of linking to the text... If we quote this on WikiSource then I think it would be a copyright violation. Perhaps we could give the chapter and paraphrase a bit more? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:19, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I posted a link in the original WP:FAC discussion in August. Its half way down this page - not brilliant though. -- Solipsist 09:19, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The ironic (and slightly annoying) thing is, the HHGTTG doesn't refer to any explosion at all. Unless I'm very mistaken, all it mentions is a "sudden wet thud". Hence, the whole reference doesn't belong in an article explicitly about exploding whales. -- FirstPrinciples 07:46, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

I think any whale that makes "a crater about a hundred and fifty yards wide" ought to be called 'thoroughly exploded'. More importantly, there is later "In the centre lay the exploded carcass of a lonely sperm whale [...]". Femto 18:14, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I should add that I only own a translated version of the book and the quotes are the result of a web search for that passage. If someone could verify against their book? Also, only the 'thud' is in chapter 18, the crater itself is described in chapter 20 when they visit it. (changed it accordingly) Femto 21:32, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're right, your quote from chapter 20 is accurate. I withdraw and apologise. -- FirstPrinciples 09:08, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

No need to apologise for trying to keep an article factual. Femto 13:05, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reference section

Just a mention, I've seperated the "Reference section" into 2 sections, "Bibliography" and "External links" just to make it neater. Also removed the link to the Oregon Department of Transportation website as it really didn't belong there... =) --Andylkl 15:55, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Andy, I appreciate your assistance here, but I'm rather afraid that we need the references section the way it was. The external links section is more for further information (think of it like "Further reading", just for webpages) and References is also needed to clearly explain where we have gotten our information from (we need to attribute this information). Please see cite your sources, and also the objections that are regularly raised on WP:FAC. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:26, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hm... Yes I do know that citing the source is important, but the thing that irks me is the lack of consistency in the References and External links section. Suppose that books, webpages and news articles be seperated but still stay under the Reference umbrella? Btw, the Oregon Department of Transportation website link needs to go, that I'm sure... --Andylkl 05:34, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed about the Oregon Department of Transportation link, however if you check the edit history you'll note that we had placed all the external links into section AND in the references section at one point. A decision was arrived at that this was duplicating information so we moved all the external links referenced in the story to References and added other links not referenced in the article to External Links. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:02, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's a wise thing to do. Based on the featured articles that I've read, like the Great Mosque of Djenné, Bloodletting, 1989 Tienanmen Square protests, Ridge Route, yesterday's Battle of Normandy and today's Shakers, the sources and links section there have a vastly different style than the one we have on this article. For most of the articles that I've seen, all links to outside websites were placed under External links to avoid confusion and to make the articles look tidier. Sources were also limited to books only, as in the case of Ridge Route. Imho, the source of the article is already cited when the link is included in External links. About your comment on my talk page regarding the article on Mark Latham, I'm sorry but I can't really take your word about it yet as I haven't come accross another Wikipedia user who uses than kind of source citing format. --Andylkl 08:57, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you don't agree with me, then may I suggest you read cite your sources for the suggested manner in which we produce references? This is where I get my information from. The articles you refer to, by the way, are older featured articles where referencing was not such an issue. Correct referencing is now very important for featured articles. Please consult with either Filiocht, Raul654, Lupo or Maveric149 if you don't believe me. Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:44, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's not that I disagree with you, I'm just interested on shifting the reference links around a bit so that it looks like this. Done already. --Andylkl 10:18, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't mind the way you've rearranged the links. This is definitely a more clear layout of references types. I was most worried that we'd lose the seperation of internal article references and "further reading" links/references. For the record, I'm going to modify my articles to be more like this. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:39, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Guess I wasn't clear enough on my intentions. Anyway, glad to be of help. =) --Andylkl 10:51, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Synonym overload?

I disagree. I think the sentence is fine, and in fact other must agree because it's part of the text prepared for the front page! I've rolled it back (perhaps a mistake, I should have placed a comment on the edit summary and then reverted it back).- Ta bu shi da yu 14:52, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• P.S. unusual, absurd and "highly improbable" are not necessarily synonyms. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:53, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

whoda thunk

the article is interesting to read once found, but who would ever think to look for it? It is hard to imagine someone saying he needs information on exploding whales and enter it in wikipedias title box.

Not all articles here are necessarily intended to be found by typing the topic in the search form. This article is linked to directly by many other articles, including Wikipedia:Unusual articles, and that's perfectly sufficient. -- FirstPrinciples 04:33, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

Use of Explosive on Carcasses

There probably should be something added about how Highway Patrols occassionally uses explosives to get rid of roadkill in remote locations where the carcass is too large/unweildly to remove in other ways. In these cases they use a lot of explosives with the principle of blasting the carcass into pieces so small that there is no trace left. I understand that this is actually quite effective, and that you could drive through a section of the road where they blew up a moose carcass and see absolutely no sign of it 20 minutes later. However, thinking this could be scaled up to a whale is pretty naive. --Webgeer 07:32, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also, why "two real-life documented incidents"? I don't know about spontaneously exploding whales, but the blowing up of whale caracsses is fairly standard practice, afaik, and it should be easy to come up with lots of documented cases. I happen to know that one carcass was exploded on the Isle of Lewis in 1993 (or 1994), for example. dab 12:33, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

?!? Please provide a reference! - Ta bu shi da yu 23:36, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Explosives used to euthanase a humpback near Port Elizabeth, South Africa 6 Aug 2001 http://www.dawn.com/2001/08/07/int7.htm. A few weeks later near the same place explosives used to blow up a dead humpback at sea so it would not pose a hazard to vessels. http://www.dispatch.co.za/2001/08/22/easterncape/AHUMPBAC.HTM Nurg 08:22, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Euthenasia literally means 'gentle death'. Death by explosives doesn't sound quite so peaceful. →Raul654 08:39, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

http://www.sabcnews.com/south_africa/general/0,2172,88173,00.html - also happened in Bonza Bay beach in East London! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just received a partial confirmation of at least one Lewis incident. A friend of mine lives on the north coast of Lewis, so I asked her to check out whether any whales had been blown up there. As it happens they had another whale beaching this week (at least the second this year), but it was loaded onto a flat bed truck and buried in a landfill site. However, someone did confirm that whales are quite often disposed of with explosives - there was one blown up on Dalbeg beach 'a couple of years ago' (which could be 1993), although it ended up covering much of the village with blood and guts. Another interesting aside, is that it matters how large the whale is. At under 20ft its a local council matter, over 20ft its property of the crown and then the Scottish executive has to pay the local council ~£50,000 to dispose of it. -- Solipsist 23:09, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Interesting. Whales, like sturgeon and porpoises, are royal fish - that is, they belong to the Crown (Quotation from Moby Dick). I didn't realise that there was a size limit. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:57, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Edit war?

Is it just me or is there an edit-war going on? Brutulf 13:40, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

Certainly more editing than usual. But I've just checked - this article is featured on the main page today, which tends to result in a burst of activity. -- Solipsist 13:45, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Grey Whale - Lite

I think there is an error in that the first whale is referrenced as 45 ft. in length and 8 tons in weight, and the second is referrenced as 56 ft. and 50 tons. These two figures don't seem to mesh to me even given the different species? Perhaps some explanation is in order? --dave@iniquinet.com

You've got a good point there. Checking the references, it looks like the KATU news report did say the Grey Whale weighed 8 tons, but this could well be a mistake. The length at 45ft looks plausible for and adult Grey Whale, however other sources [2] suggest that an adult should weigh more like 35 tons. Even a new born pup weighs approximately 1 ton. The news report does mention the whale was long dead, but if it had already lost over 75% of its mass there wouldn't be much need to blow it up. It wouldn't be the first time a report had got his facts wrong. -- Solipsist 20:24, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, considering the first whale was a grey whale, and the second whale was a sperm whale, I don't find it that suprising. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:34, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, assuming that the reported weight is correct, even for an anorexic and long-dead grey whale weighing only 8 tons, that is still an awful lot of whale meat to get rid of: perhaps it puts the analogy with road-kill moose (see above) into perspective, and makes the decision to use explosives not so bizarre. More information on the South African and Lewis citations above would be good, though. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:26, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Google leads to Explosives used to blow up whale in South Africa and South Africa Kills Beached Whale from August 2001; and this blog which may refer to Lewis. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:30, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

E.W. in books of fiction

The text describing the Patrick O'Brien short story is copied directly from the Snopes.com website. Could the contributor please re-write it? JHCC 17:14, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It was not me originally, but I have played around with the text - better? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:40, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reversion of edit

It appears that there are objections to the phrase , who described himself as a "land-blubber" and reported that "the blast blasted blubber beyond all believable bounds.". Michali says it's "bragging" by a guy who was at the event. I'm unsure why he's saying this. I'm putting it back and bringing this to the talk page. I don't want to get into a revert war over something so silly. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:37, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

He didn't describe himself as "land-blubber" (which would be bragging about himself) so this my objection is void. And he he didn't "report" thet the "blast blasted, etc.", because he said this before blast. Before entering into reversal war I suggest you to watch the movie or watch it carefully. The article has enough interesting data without this silly phrase taken out of context. Now, your turn to tell me what is the reason to make an encyclopedia article into paparazzi-style report? Mikkalai 01:19, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mikkalai, could you read the transcript at [3]? What he said was "The sand dunes there were covered with spectators and landlubber newsmen, shortly to become land-blubber newsmen. For the blast blasted blubber beyond all believable bounds." I have clarified that he called himself a land-blubber newsman. Incidently, I'm not turning this into a "paparazzi-style report", and I don't appreciate you saying so. This has been in the article almost from the start, it never got questioned in featured article candidates and we had people go over this with a fine tooth-comb. The information is relevant. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:32, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

P.S. Just noticed something else: how could Paul have said "blast blasted blubber beyond all believable bounds" before the explosion? That statement could only have been made after the explosion - how can you talk about something happening before the event? The logic here boggles the mind. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:11, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Don't engage in logic, save your mind, just watch the video. He said in before the blast. Dis you see the video or not? Watch it, and then continue this silly bickering. I start suspecting that there is something in you character that disallows you to give up. Give up, man, you are wrong.Mikkalai 03:24, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can you read what you wrote yourself? Reverting nonsense again. The fact that information stayed there simply means people who wrote it don't care about correctness. Also, it is irrelevant to the event, adding nothing to the description but the fantasy of the reporter, who said this phrase "before" the blast itself. Even in this respect the information is inadmissible. Mikkalai 02:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mikkalai, you still haven't stated what is incorrect! I originally wrote what is in there, incidently. I do care about correctness. I will explain why it is relevant to the event: it is relevant because the chunks of whale meat (or blubber) landed all over the reporters and spectators and so caused them to become "land-blubbers" (a play on words that made the report highly amusing and interesting). It was not bragging. Bragging means "To talk about one's self, or things pertaining to one's self, in a manner intended to excite admiration, envy, or wonder; to talk boastfully; to boast; -- often followed by of; as, to brag of one's exploits, courage, or money, or of the great things one intends to do." (Websters, 1913), this is hardly bragging about the reporter's exploits, it was merely reporting on what happened to him and others when the whale exploded — it shows the consequences of the explosion (in a highly amused tone, admittedly). - Ta bu shi da yu 02:45, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You seem to ignore what I wrote. I withdrew the accusation in bragging, since it was based on an earlier, even more incorrect version. Mikkalai 03:24, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But you still reverted! And when did you withdraw this objection?! I certainly don't see evidence of it. So now the issue is that you beleive Paul Linnman stated that the "blast blasted blubber beyond all believable bounds" after the explosion because he "he reported his fantasy in this case" [4]. C'mon - you don't seriously beleive that do you? Please give me evidence to back up your claims! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:28, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Because I can't reason with Mikkalai, I have placed this issue on WP:RFC. I don't want to engage in an edit war, and Mikkalai has done 4 reverts. I won't revert again, I will only ask for outside opinion. I really wish I didn't have to do this, though. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:02, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As is so often the case, it seems you are both right and are talking somewhat at crosspurposes. I watched the video and it seems to bear you both out to some extent! I think the newsman's joke is so lame as not really to be worth including but if Ta bu shi da yu feels strongly that it should be, I can't see why Mikkalai won't just let it be. I've reworded the section so that it is much more accurate, in particular, in making it clear that he made the witticism *after the fact* on his voiceover, which is quie clear when you watch the video. Please, Mikkalai, let this one go. It's wholly factual, even if not particularly interesting,Dr Zen 03:57, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is not the joke itself that pisses me off. It is sensationalism and lack of diligency in the desire to preserve a silly thing by all means. Mikkalai 04:20, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mikkalai, I sympathise. But on the other hand, it's not creditable to go so far in fighting it!Dr Zen 04:23, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can't beleive I have to explain this joke to Mikkalai, but here goes: land-lubber is seafaring slang for those people who stay on land and never go to see. The joke is that Paul Linnman is a "land-lubber" before the explosion, and becomes a "land-blubber" after the explosion. The play on words here is that blubber rhymes with lubber, and blubber is the fat of a whale. Hence the joke. If Mikkalai doesn't get the joke, I suggest he stops making edits with summaries like 'it is amazing how after this long dicpute someone stll fails to see the difference between "land-blubber" and "land-blubber newsman"' [5]. Sheesh. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Edit suggestion: In his voiceover recorded after the event, Linnman joked that "land-lubber newsmen" turned into became "land-blubber newsmen" as for "the blast blasted blubber beyond all believable bounds." (A bit shorter, and even closer to the original without copying it. Precede the 'for' with a comma? Maybe italicize land-blubber to match the spoken emphasis?) Femto 19:53, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Curiously, on watching the video on the KATU news web site, the sentence in question has been editted out and doesn't occur. A couple of the preceeding lines, such as 'Is there any chance it might be more than a one day job?' aren't there either. In any case, I would agree that it is a pretty lame and dated joke. Ta bu shi da yu is correct that it occurs in the transcript, but I think the article is better and has a dryer wit with out it. -- Solipsist 21:30, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

At this point, one has to remind oneself that this contention has arisen over a stupid joke by a newsman. I vote for sticking with what we have and everyone putting their energy to better use!Dr Zen 22:21, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fair point. I might be a bit close to this article... - Ta bu shi da yu 22:49, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

One also has to remind oneself that most of this contention came from a single source... Call it a lame joke or a stupid pun after reading it for the 100th time, but these quotes are an integral part of what made this a legend. More than one website uses the 'bbbbabb' as the main image caption or link description, because it's the one pivotal quote that describes the whole absurdity. You left something out if you wrote about the event and its news report but didn't mention the joking newsman. In the current form the article appears good enough to me at talking about an aging joke in a dry-wit way, without looking silly itself in any way. Femto 23:20, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Botulism

Hoping to fit this detail into the article:

• In 2002, fourteen Alaskans ate muktuk (whale meat) from a beached whale, and eight of them developed symptoms of botulism, two of them requiring mechanical ventilation [6]. No explosives were used here.

Femto reverted, maintaining that it was not revelant to the article. Does everybody agree? Where else should I put it - because it is important enough. JFW | T@lk 10:03, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But, um... it's not actually about exploding whales, which is the title of this peice. What about adding it to an article like beached whale or beached whale incidents? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It fitted nicely in Botulism - which even already mentioned 'unusual sources' and 'fermentation' - Incidentally, the idea of eating old, rotting whale meat appears less stupid (but not less reckless) in the light that some people really consider anaerobically fermented meat a traditional delicacy (buried in a cache in the ground and allowed to become 'high'). [7] There's also something called 'stinkfish'... [8] Femto 13:11, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Femto and TBSDY. I will move the indicent accordingly. It's one of my favourite "don't to that then" stories. JFW | T@lk 13:18, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You probably already noticed that I included it while I was there. As always, feel free to improve it though. Femto 13:57, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Notes of Appreciation

soren9580: I just wanted to say how much I think this article rocks. I haven't enjoyed a story like this in a while, so kudos to everyone who worked on it.

Cheers :-) Ta bu shi da yu 13:36, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

French

I started a page, translating the en: to fr:baleine explosante. And am guessing that some bits can't be translated, such as the "land-blubber" bits. The Frenchies have been quite keen to vigorously correct the fluidity of my French, and so I propose translation of this article elsewhere - its funny--Wonderfool 01:51, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Uh... just passed the French article through Google translate and it appears to refer to 500 kilograms of TNT!!! Good grief. There just wouldn't be a beach LEFT if that was the case :-) Ta bu shi da yu 02:20, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now it says 500 kg of dynamite. Sacre bleu! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:32, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have long thought that exploding whale was an odd article title

It feels like there is a problem with the grammar. I am quite tempted to merge beached whale and exploding whale - so in effect exploding whale becomes the "methods of disposal" section. Beaching is a fascinating scientific topic - and I wonder if a bit of science might do a bit to shore up the slightly more "ripley's believe it or not" nature of some of this article. Pcb21| Pete 20:14, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No. I definitely oppose this merge. Exploding whale is a totally seperate article to beached whale. Firstly, not all beached whales are exploding whales, while it may be the case that not all exploding whales in future will be beached whales (though currently, this is not the case). Also, the Exploding whale article is quite good enough on its own and has enough info to justify this, and a beached whale article would do well to detail info about beached whale and include a section called "Exploding whales" which has a main article: exploding whale and then its text in summary form. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:12, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

German / European Copyright Laws

Hy there,

is there any way to get some pictures that aren't copyrighted under European laws. The Wikipedia admins over here are quiet annoying in this respect and don't allow "fair use". --L-Cain 09:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks to Wayward

I'd like to thank Wayward for doing the note conversions. Thanks! :-) I did notice an issue we weren't aware of in that you can't use {{ref|<1>}} because it comes out like this - <sup class="plainlinks nourlexpansion citation" id="ref_<1>">[9] and not as we want it - ^[10]. Nonetheless, a great job and one I was dreading :-) Ta bu shi da yu 04:59, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I got a little ahead of myself before fully understanding the note system. But thanks to your invisible note in the article—which I copied to a file—I think I've got the hang of it. —Wayward 06:14, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Translate me!

I reckon that this article, one of our gems, should get translated into many languages. Voice your support over on meta if you think its a good idea. Theres a subpage at es:Animal explosivo#Ballena explosiva. --Wonderfool t(c) 12:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

New text... can we get a source?

The IWC text in the lead: what is the source for this? - 203.134.166.99 08:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)