Talk:Dolphin/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Add video of bottlenose dolphins mating?

Here is a link if you think so: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gNxKV_yi-U&feature=related Gamernotnerd (talk) 00:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

There's about a million videos of dolphins on youtube, we can hardly go and link to all of them - even if they're having a fun shag. BabyNuke (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Social Behavior Word Choice

Minor nit, but I wanted to post it here first, rather than just change the page+ Under social behavior the page currently reads "In May 2005, researchers in Australia discovered a cultural aspect of dolphin behaviour: Some dolphins (Tursiops aduncus) teach their children to use tools." The whole sentence is kind of slapdash, but I don't think children is the right word here at all. Perhaps young would be much more appropriate. Himejijo 02:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Dolphin Sleep

It would be good to mention existing theories about how/if dolphins sleep. There's a good article describing the "half-brain at a time" sleep theory, though I suppose "howstuffworks.com," is not considered an authoritative source:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question643.htm

Added sleep section BabyNuke (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

2007: (International) Year of the Dolphin

The year 2007 has been declared as (International) Year of the Dolphin by the United Nations and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (External link: official website 2007: (International) Year of the Dolphin.

The UN Convention on Migratory Species, together with its specialized agreements on ed 2007 as the "Year of the Dolphin" ('YOD')).

• Background

Dolphins are threatened marine mammals with close ties to human history and culture. Living in oceans and rivers, their survival is becoming increasingly difficult. Dolphins need clean and quiet oceans, protected areas.

The Year of the Dolphin will be part of the UN Decade on Education for Sustainable Development. The campaign is also a tangible contribution towards meeting targets to reduce the loss of wildlife by 2010 which all Governments have agreed through the UN.

• Theme / Campaign / Activities

The United Nations, member Governments, intergovernmental organizations, NGOs and the private sector (e.g. TUI) are building a strong alliance to achieve a common objective: to protect dolphins.
A crucial factor in achieving this is education to create awareness of dolphin species, educate, inform decision makers and involve local communities.

• Patron

The designated (International) Patron of the Year of the Dolphin is H.S.H. Prince Albert II of Monaco, who formally launched the year on 17 September 2006. The Prince released a statement reading: "The Year of the Dolphin gives me the opportunity to renew my firm commitment towards protecting marine biodiversity. With this strong initiative we can make a difference to save these fascinating marine mammals from the brink of extinction".
- ( Brabo 02:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC) )

POV issues

See discussion at Talk:Cetacea#POV issues. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 00:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

saving people

a section on dolphines saving people from drowning--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 14:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

My boss in 1985 used to grumble whenever an anecdote about dolphins rescuing humans would hit the gossip grapevine, "You wouldn't expect to hear from the ones they dragged further out to sea." --Wesley R. Elsberry 18:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Tião BabyNuke 18:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

screensaver of Dolphins

i added a free dolphin screensaver for everyone who love dolphins :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.192.42.217 (talk) 05:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

I removed the link. Should we put up links to dolphin calendars? Winamp skins? Dolphin tattoos? There's loads of stuff that might look nice but it has little relevance. BabyNuke 15:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. InsaneZeroG 01:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

removed horrific image

There used to be an image of slaughtered dolphins. I removed it, because it's horrific and inappropriate. What if a little girl who loves cute animals visits this page and sees slaughtered dolphins? I know Wikipedia is not censored and doesn't have any policy against offensive content, but in this case such portrayal of shocking gore is comnpletely unnecessary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caballaria (talk • contribs) 11:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

I disagree. First of all, you said it yourself - wikipedia is uncensored and thus the image perfectly fits that section. The photo shows nothing but reality, even if reality is grim on occasion. Wikipedia is first of all a source of information and just because some things aren't as pleasant doesn't mean they should be left out. If a little girl sees the photo, I'm tempted to say so what? The world isn't all beautiful and if she cares about dolphins, perhaps then a photo like that may serve as a wake-up call. BabyNuke 13:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The article does say that dolphin get slaughtered. Do we need to add a picture, even? That's the equivalent of putting a picture of some horrific slaughtered person under "homo sapiens" on the ground that people get killed and slaughtered, too. When I'm looking for information, I'm looking for information, I'm not looking for cheap shock stuff. Now, if the picture had some vital informative value, then it would be a good idea to post it. But in this case, what's the point? Do we find some kind of perverted pleasure in forcing people to see horrific picture? This is not information, this is tasteless sadism.

I have to add, frankly, I'm surprised that anyone even cared about restoring the picture. Why do you care so much about it? Do you really think it improves the article? Take a step backwards and watch this in perspective. Do you think an article about dolphin is better with or without a very gory image of slaughtered dolphins? The answer is that it's better without, because then it's readable for a wider audience. On the other side, keeping the image wouldn't add anything to wether the article is informative. Caballaria 17:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I added the photo in the first place, hence I reverted your change. I feel the image is informative in the sense that by far the majority of people I know do not know these things happen to begin with. An image can say a thousand words. It has nothing to do with sadism, it is reality. Sadly, it seems you for some reason cannot actually deal with reality because you do not like it and hence would rather not see it. Yes, ignorance is bliss. If people skim the article, the image will stand out - make people stop, see what it is about and think. People might just learn something - and isn't that one of the main goals of wikipedia? As it is said on wp itself, a good image has the capture someone's attention. And it does. I love dolphins, there is no pleasure for me in seeing this. I hope for people to see the image and then read up on what they see.

I am reverting it again for now. HOWEVER, I would like some comments from others also. Should the majority of people agree with Caballaria, then I won't push for it. I am not interested in an edit war anyway. I would also like you to not delete it again before some others have given their opinion on this. It has been there for a while now and you're the first to complain. BabyNuke 19:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The image should stay. Saying dolphin are slaughtered is just words. Pictures can show what slaughter looks like. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Image should stay - it´s an exceeding good image and far from gory.. SammytheSeal 09:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Late to the party, but image should stay. WP is not censored. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

To the OP: pictures like these bear witness and testimony as to a real issue that needs attention from people if it is going to change. Ignorance is NOT bliss. Picture should stay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Species2112 (talk • contribs).

That is so very much not the point of the article. It should not be a propoganda machine. It should not be trying to change the world. I'm not saying that there's no reason to keep the image, just that the above reason isn't really valid. -masa ♫ 06:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Species2112 was saying exactly that. I think they mostly meant that the original poster was wrong to remove a picture on the basis that they love dolphins. If a reader does love dolphins, surely they would want to know about their mass slaughter? Of course it could be that the OP was actually just talking about the idea of dolphins (toys, tv series etc), and doesn't really care about the real thing at all.

Why not move the image from Dolphin and put it on Dolphin drive hunting where it's more relevant (and maybe rework the section to make the link to Dolphin drive hunting more prominent)? You know, actually put it somewhere that it would contribute, unstead of somewhere that many people are arguing is unnecessary and pointless? -masa ♫ 06:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No references for dolphins in human culture section

I've added two "see also" notes to it and beyond that, I do not believes this section needs any references. The article on the Flipper TV series is enough of a reference and that also goes for the various other things such as books and movies mentioned. If you still find something that really needs a reference, place a note behind that specific entry please. BabyNuke 14:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Added 2 comments on Mythology

Its pretty common knowledge that killing dolphins is superstitiously bad luck to mariners and considered good luck if they are riding alongside ships... There are absolutely tons of sites on the internet to cite it from but I felt no need to cite it since its so commonly known... added to article Species2112 12:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? I don't think that's that much of common knowledge. I didn't really know that considering that tuna fishing occasionally caught Dolphins and I heard nothing of any "bad luck." Are you sure it's common knowledge? InsaneZeroG 01:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Dolphin-human therapy

More should be added to this section. Joie de Vivre 22:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this section takes proportionally too much space in an article about dolphins (note: it's not how cute dolphins are </cynicism>). I suggest a separate article Dolphin-human therapy. --Ben ^T/_C 18:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The trouble with this is that this issue is highly contraversial. All recent studies by NON-bias sources state there is NO scientific evidence to back the therapy or that there is anything special about dolphins. You see the same effects on the brain from spending time with any other animal. But if that got put on here, all the 'dolphin-huggers' would rip it to bits. The duskydolphin 05:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Procreation

Just read about some relationship of cognitive abilities in animals and fornication irrespective of procreation, an argument with a special mention of dolphins (apart from chimps). I hope someone can add a section about procreation, offspring, etc. --Ben ^T/_C 18:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Could do that. BabyNuke 21:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

A really minor point

In the literature section it claims Hagbard Celine enlisted the help of dolphins to fight the Illuminati in the Illuminatus! trilogy. However, the actual book does not make it completely clear whether that group was the real illuminati, or which of the many groups who claim to be the illuminati can be consider genuinely "evil," as opposed to amoral or misunderstood. So I would just like, as a really minor change that shouldn't bother anyone, to replace the phrase "evil illuminati" with "one of the many groups claiming to be the illuminati" or "submersibles raiding atlantean ruins in the deep ocean" or something less definitive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.106.113.110 (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Dolphin Intelligence

Should there be a reference to dolphin intelligence since they are the second intelligent species here on the planet AFAIK? Is there a specialist in the room? :P Kind regards, --MisteryX 08:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The current wording is that they are amongst the most intelligent. Second most is probably hard to say, also because there's all kinds of dolphins. BabyNuke 11:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe the wording in the behavior section works well, talking about the difficulty in assessing intelligence. Of course its always hard to ignore Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy here. :-)(Saboater 17:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

Only a few dolphin species actually live up to the whole 'extreme intelligence' theory. Most dolphin intelligence is simply survival but people tend to 'anthropomorphise' because the media hypes dolphins up. An interesting article written by Bernd Wursig in the 'Dolphins' book by Tim Cahill/National Geo goes into good detail on this. It states that very few dolphins show intelligence that people think of when they think of dolphins have and it is really only the larger dolphins (particularly Orca, Pilot whales and the Bottlenose dolphin) that show any remarkable intelligence and even that is only comparable to the other intelligent animals like the elephant, great apes and parrots.(The duskydolphin 05:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC))

Intelligence is indeed very species dependant, though it can be said that "on average" dolphins are quite "clever", with some animals being above and some below the average. BabyNuke 20:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MisteryX that there should be a section on dolphins' alleged superior intelligence, though I myself am skeptical about it. I often hear people claim that dolphins are more intelligent than humans. I have a good friend who sincerly believes this but has never been able to cite any evidence. When pressed, she rolls her eyes at me and says it's so obvious that if I can't see it then she's not going to waste her time trying to explain it. (She also thinks her cats understand English and worries that they will be upset by how I talk about them.) Frankly, it sounds like more of the same old crackpot baloney to me. But are there any actual studies that have given any indication of just how smart these animals are, or is this whole thing just the result of silly, sentimental people like my friend (whom I love dearly) proclaiming it true because they just feel like it should be? --Beetfarm Louie (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that cetacean brains tend to be larger related to body size than humans and more convoluted. At various times, either or both of those were used to claim superior intelligence. As wild animals they have unique abilities to thrive in their environment. Intelligence, as a human construct, may not be very measurable in wild animals, so trying to make any comparison is difficult. As a human, you're welcome to claim superior intelligence. The dolphins won't care. Bob98133 (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

How long do dolphins live?

I couldn't find any info about how long cetaceans live. This would be a good addition to the pages.

The lifespan varies significantly per species, hence there is no simple answer to this question. Orcas may come close to 100 years in age, while a Bottlenose will pretty much never live longer than 50 years. I could try to find the "extremes" though, like the shortest and longest living dolphin and mention those. BabyNuke 19:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Where are you finding age structure information for orcas? Sea World's estimated age at capture ranges from 12 to 27 years (Duffield, D. A., D. K. Odell, et al. (1995). "Killer Whale (Orcinus-Orca) Reproduction at Sea-World." Zoo Biology 14(5): 417-430.). Another paper describes juvenile ages as 1 to 7 years, puberty between 8 and 12 years, and sexual maturity in males reached at 13 and older (Robeck, T. R. and S. L. Monfort (2006). "Characterization of male killer whale (Orcinus orca) sexual maturation and reproductive seasonality." Theriogenology 66(2): 242-250.) Obviously, animals who don't sexually mature until their teens will typically need to live to a fair bit beyond that age. But another 87 years in the wild? That seems excessive. In the literature, I don't recall seeing any estimate so high as 100 years for a typical long-lived individual of any cetacean species. I'd be very interested in references that do make that statement. --Wesley R. Elsberry 21:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

A hundred years would be quite exceptional probably, though females at least can most certainly reach ages over 80 in the wild.

"The oldest known orcas are two females (K7 and J2), still living, who were estimated to have been born in 1910 and 1911, and one male (J1), also still alive, who was born in or near 1951." - both of those female Orcas are close to 100 years, though the source is from 2003 and they may have died since. Still, even in 2003 they would've been over 90 already. And I know of similar reports of Orcas reaching such ages. Obviously, these ages are very much the upper limit, but apparantly not impossible. Most will not reach this age obviously, and lifespan for Orcas is greatly reduced in captivity. SeaWorld capture reports aren't very useful since they wouldn't be very interested in capturing very old animals I'd say. BabyNuke 19:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the link provides more detail than you have indicated:

The short and long answers come from: Olesiuk, P.F., M.A. Bigg and G.M. Ellis (Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, B.C., Canada V9R 5K6) (1990). Life history and population dynamics of resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) in the coastal waters of British Columbia and Washington State. From the abstract:

Life history parameters are derived for the resident form of killer whale in the coastal waters of British Columbia and Washington State based on the demographic changes observed in two communities (closed to immigration and emigration) that were monitored between 1973-4 and 1987. Females have a mean life expectancy of 50.2 years, typically give birth to their first viable calf at 14.9 years of age, produce an average of 5.35 viable calves over a 25.2 year reproductive lifespan and have a maximum longevity of about 80-90 years. Calving is diffusely seasonal with most births occurring in October-March. Neonate mortality is approximately 43%. The estimated proportion of mature females pregnant varies from 0.274 in April to 0.411 in September. Males have a mean life expectancy of 29.2 years, typically attain sexual maturity at 15.0 years and physical maturity at 21.0 years of age, and have a maximum longevity of about 50-60 years.

I think that it is far more informative to discuss the average longevity than the exceptional longevity. Further, even the extreme numbers are reported to have wide differences according to gender, with the males being stated to live, at the extreme, thirty years less than females at the extreme. The abstract from the gray literature source reported in the link at least gives estimated mean longevity of 50.2 years for females, and 29.2 years for males. While I have misgivings about the reliability of the report, it does seem to be the best available estimate, and I wouldn't object to having those mean ages for Orcinus orca put into the article, perhaps with a footnote stating that a verifiable source still needs to be found.

According to the source that you provided, a further 87 years past sexual maturity is at least exceptional if not excessive. But what we have even there is second-hand, and the gray literature original report is hard to verify. The report of the exceptionally long-lived individuals (K7 and J2) is without question not verifiable given the linked text. Even if we take the statements given as reliable (which is not indicated), what we have is an estimate of age using unknown methods at the very earliest point being perhaps 1973, meaning at the very best case that an estimate was made that the two whales were 63 and 62 at that time. IIRC, even sampling a tooth and making an age estimate decreases in reliability once an individual is past the average age of sexual maturity, and we have presented here no data concerning whether some empirical means of age estimation was used, or just an expert's best subjective guess at the time. If the cited report could be examined, it might clear up the issue of how reliable those age estimates for the exceptional individuals really were. Without that, though, we are left with hearsay.

As for the contention that lifespan for killer whales is reduced in captivity, I would be interested in the NPOV, reliable, verifiable sources that permit that inference. If one is expecting exceptional longevity, then I think there will be a major discrepancy, since one should not have that expectation. As it stands, I think that there is a lot of estimation, and therefore uncertainty, concerning actual age structures of populations (that is why I have mentioned the longitudinal study of bottlenose dolphins in Sarasota Bay by Wells and others as a potential source), which makes it difficult to come to a comparative assessment of age structure in the two contexts.

Further, the Sea World studies that I provided citations to were not simply "capture reports". For example, the first citation (Duffield et al. 1995) reports as follows:

The captive-born whales ranged in age from <1 to 8 years. In the Sea World breeding program (through September, 1993), there have been nine live births and one stillbirth, with eight calves part of the current inventory.

which sounds like a difference from the wild population's 43% infant mortality cited in the abstract quoted in the link you provided. The second citation, Robeck and Monfort 2006, had no relation to capture reports whatever.

I agree that Sea World was not likely out to capture aged individuals, but then I never claimed otherwise. --Wesley R. Elsberry 22:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Dolphin Vision

I was reading some materials on the evolution of dolphin deep-sea vision that showed how it was optimized for dim light. However, under dim light conditions, color vision is not all that useful; nocturnal land animals tend to be colorblind. Anybody know much about the precise details of dolphin vision? How many colors can they perceive? Just curious ... MrG 4.225.210.193 02:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Dolphins perceive a smaller range of the color spectrum than we do, mainly the lower wavelengths (UV / blue). BabyNuke 12:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

IUCN Red List

Why doesn't this page have an IUCN Red List graphic like most other species wiki sites? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.10.79 (talk • contribs).

Because "dolphin" is not *a* species. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Signature whistle hypothesis

The article says,

"Research has shown however that they are capable of identifying themselves to other dolphins using a signature whistle; a whistle that is unique to that dolphin."

Uh, no, that's not what a signature whistle is. A signature whistle for a dolphin is the whistle most often emitted by a dolphin, not a whistle that is unique to that dolphin. There is research concerning whether dolphins do "calling" by using the signature whistles of other dolphins, but it is certainly the case that a particular "signature whistle" may be used by another dolphin. The signature whistle hypothesis is about whether dolphins can reliably associate a particular whistle with an individual, not that each dolphin has a completely novel and unique whistle. --Wesley R. Elsberry 16:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ehm, yeah - I guess my wording is a bit off there. What I hoped to say is that the whistle is unique to that dolphin in the sense that it refers to that specific individual, not that that dolphin is the only one using it. I'll reword. BabyNuke 12:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Wesley R. Elsberry 17:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

List of dolphins article

Since it's been suggested to merge this article in to this one: I say yes. The full list is in this article already anyway. So this seperate article has no added value. I don't think it contains any information that isn't in this article either. So unless there are any objections (I'll give it a day or two), I'll delete that article and leave it as a redirect page to this one. BabyNuke 14:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Since there were no comments, the list of dolphins article is now a redirect page to this one. It contained no content that wasn't covered in this article, so no content was moved. One anatomy drawing has been lost, but this article also has one which I find is better anyone. BabyNuke 13:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sexual behavior

Will someone please roll back the usage of "f*ck" in this section? It's obvious vandalism, but the page is semi-protected so there's nothing I can do about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.24.153 (talk) 11:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Male dolphins are extremely aggresive when mating, bordering on rape. this received no mention in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.92.142 (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

They can be aggressive when it comes to sex. I am not sure if this varies per species, but Bottlenose dolphins seem to have the worst reputation when it comes to this. But that could also just be because most research has been done on them. I'll see if I can dig something up and add that to the article. BabyNuke 12:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Rape in a huge variety of dolphins is well documented. However, facts like that is something people hate to hear because most people think dolphins are these telepathic animals that are all love and joy and are incapable of being 'nasty'. The duskydolphin 05:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It should always be remembered that “rape” is a concept peculiar to human behaviour, and culture-dependent even within that species. There is no reason to think that dolphin “rape” is something that would emotionally traumatise and humiliate a female dolphin, nor physically injure her, thus sending her to a female dolphin rape crisis centre. The whole thing might be just one big happy orgy. We don’t use concepts such as murder, larceny, and adultery for other animals, and there is no need to do it for dolphins. Myles325a (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

While the word "rape" is never used in the article and thus this isn't a too important discussion, most certainly, dolphins can be injured during forceful attempts to mate. Furthermore, the dictionary defines "to rape" as "to force to have sexual intercourse", which is entirely within the scope of dolphin behaviour. And let's face it, if rape is too much of a human concept, isn't an orgy as well? ;) BabyNuke (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You've got me on the "orgy" point, I have to admit! Yes, rape is defined as you noted, but words can have strong connotations which are often difficult to pin down in a dictionary. For example, the terms "sexual intercourse" and "f*ck" might be said to be the same thing, but in actual usage, the terms are not interchangeable. Likewise, "rape" has much more than a purely medical or forensic connotation. The suggestion of crime, and outrage is very strong here. So if I used the word "rape" in the context of dolphin behaviour, I would qualify it to show that this was not abberrant behaviour on the part of dolphins. I suppose much of the import of post-modernism is showing just how strongly words are coloured by in-build cultural factors, making it very difficult, if not impossible, to make totally non-subjective statements. Your point re: my slip on "orgy" actually demonstrated that better than my original criticism of the word "rape", Myles325a (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"So if I used the word "rape" in the context of dolphin behaviour, I would qualify it to show that this was not abberrant behaviour on the part of dolphins." That is not entirely true, for if it were then the word would not be accurate for humans either, considering that "rape" in humans seems to have been in practice since ancient times, it would not count as aberrant so much as immoral. therefore it would seem that if rape can be accurately used to describe a human action, so to can it be accurately used to describe a dolphin action. 166.214.174.237 (talk) 11:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If you use the word "rape" for dolphin behavior, you would be misusing the word since it is specifically defined as forced sexual contact with a person. Although some dolphin sex may appear to be "rape" there is no way to determine whether or not force was involved or whether the mating was consentual. "No" might not mean "no" for a dolphin. If there is some point in describing this behavior in the article, it should be a value-free description of the behavior, not an attempt to get dolphin behavior to fit well-defined human context.Bob98133 (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Beach feeding image not fair use

The fair use rationale for Image:OrcaSeal.jpg is very weak. It should probably be removed. —Ryan 07:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a screencap from a TV programme with no reasonable free equivalent being available, though it seems the original videoclip is no longer available on google video. Screencaps are very commonly used in wikipedia articles without any problems. I do not know the original owner though I suspect it to be National Geographic. If you want to delete it at least be so kind to dig up an alternative image. BabyNuke 10:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Despite no effort being made to find an image that shows the same but is fair use it's listed as a candidate for deletion now. Honestly, I'm not going to bother with this stuff and I don't have the time right now anyway, so I'll just let it be deleted and add a photo of something else some time. BabyNuke 21:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's new policy on fair use requires that we delete fair use images that could reasonably be replaced by a free alternative, even if we don't know of a free alternative yet. Screen caps from TV shows are generally legitimate on articles that are about the TV show. I know it's no fun to put effort into uploading a good picture and then have it deleted. I'm glad it's not discouraging you from uploading more. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 18:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

dolphins love sex :):) written by MEEEEEE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.251.40 (talk) 09:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Spelling mistake in "Origin of the name"

"reintrodued" is missing a 'c'! - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.243.195.136 (talk • contribs)

Fixed. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong species

Picture in the section Behavior does not show Spotted dolphins - The picture shows a group of Indo-Pacific Bottlenose Dolphins Tursiops aduncus. Balaenoptera1 22:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, my bad - I've corrected it now. BabyNuke 22:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

More accurate to say "Flipper understood English COMMANDS unusually well "

More accurate to say "Flipper understood English COMMANDS unusually well "

Good2share (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC) signed Good2share

Why are dolphins mammals?

How are Dolphins mammals?

Look at the definition of a Mammal. Dolphins fit all of them, same as all other cetaceans. As a rule of thumb, fish have gills. Dolphins are air breathers with lungs. Read up on things before asking elementary questions, it saves time ; ) Heliotic 04:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Cooperative Human-Dolphin Fisheries?

I see "cooperative Human-dolphin fisheries" mentioned in the article, but there's not even a brief explanation of what they are/were, and... stuff, nor are there any links... it seems a strange piece of information to be glossed over in the manner of an afterthought?

150.208.203.42 (talk) 09:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There's two references provided for this section, so there is some explanation. What roughly happens in Laguna is that dolphins herd fish into the nets for the fishermen, giving them a signal to throw the nets once the fish are in place.

I will admit that the current reference provided isn't exactly a scientific description of what happens, but I'm yet to find an accurate description of the event. I will explain in a little more detail what happens in the article in any case. BabyNuke (talk) 13:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

dolphins

dolphins are cute —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.52.206.93 (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree! :-) Dancing Angel 95 (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

altruistic behavior

The addition of the new section 'dolphin-whale relationships' seems a bit out of place to me only because this behavior seems more like a characteristic of dolphins than a particular relationship with whales. There are numerous reports of people being saved from drowning and protected from sharks by dolphins - which isn't mentioned in the article. I suggest that we move this new whale-dolphin info to a section called *altruistic behavior* as a subsection under the Behaviour section? Or maybe *alleged altruistic behavior"? If there is concensus to do this, I can do some resaerch and change the page. Thoughts? Bob98133 (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If you would've actually read the article, you'd have noticed the altruistic behaviour is mentioned (I actually expanded on that this morning) as a part of social behaviour. I've put it all together there where I think it works. Removed the dolphin-whale relationships section because it was already in the article. BabyNuke (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Small Detail...

ok, this may be irrelevant, but what's the deal with the spelling of behavior? Thanks! Dancing Angel 95 (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Both "behaviour" and "behavior" are right forms of spelling. Just a difference between British and American English. I don't care either way, really. BabyNuke (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!!! Dancing Angel 95 (talk) 04:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

from something to huh?

This sentence seems to be missingthe "to" part of the range it is describibg.

"The older a male dolphin is, the more likely his body is covered with scars ranging in depth from teeth marks made by other dolphins."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.152.115.239 (talk) 09:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC) 

No, "teeth marks" is not the lower range of the scar size, it is the cause of the scars. Ranging in this conext means varying in size. The older a dolphin is, the greater the chance its body will be covered in scars, which would be made by the teeth of other dolphins and these scars vary in size. Not the best sentence in the world i admit, but nothing is actually wrong with it,except that maybe the 'marks' part, but i think thats still technically legit. And no i did not write it. 75.187.39.176 (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sharks

I watched an episode of Mythbusters tonight where it appeared the presence of a dolphin deterred a shark from attacking their prey (season 6, episode 8, first aired 14 Nov 2007). They built a full-scale-sized, lifelike, animatronic dolphin and attracted a shark with bait. Whenever the "dolphin" was in the water the shark did no more than come close before swimming away, but whenever the "dolphin" was out of the water the shark attacked the bait.

I know it's mentioned here about dolphins protecting other creatures (incl. humans) but is there anything about them deterring sharks like this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.72.93 (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, sharks are mentioned as a specific example as to what dolphins have protected humans against. I haven't seen the episode so I don't know the details and if there's anything interesting for the article in it. BabyNuke (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Vocal Mimicry

While a broad reference to John C. Lilly may not be reliable enough to establish vocal mimicry of human speech by dolphins, the edit comment that that could not be because dolphins aren't using their larynx for the task is not a good argument. Parrots are mentioned, and the difference between larynx and syrinx actually makes the opposite point, that different mechanisms can result in similar sounds. White whales are known for such mimicry and they also use the phonic lips for sound production. I'll check to see if some citations can be found for cetacean vocal mimicry. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the John C. Lilly article here on wikipedia, it already suggests these findings are contrversial to say the least. A quote from a man named Robert Kenney: "John Lilly was the person most responsible for spreading the mythology about dolphin speech and dolphin intelligence, but his work was not very scientific, so read it with a sceptical mind."

Even if these results were fully accurate, what it shows is that dolphins can make an attempt at making sounds that come close to human words when they're being conditioned to do so. I don't think it really counts as being a normal behaviour of them. BabyNuke (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Is "normal behavior" a criterion for inclusion in articles? If so, the Wikipedia African Grey Parrot article is due for trimming of experimental work by Irene Pepperberg. I think if we find a reliable source for mimicry as a capability, then it probably does belong in the article. I agree that Lilly speaking to a popular audience doesn't yield that. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think if this research is controversial that it would be more productive to note that in the text than to delete referenced material. Lilly is quoted. Lilly is a noted dolphin researcher. Others don't agree with him - that should be noted. Bob98133 (talk) 01:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see a quote, or even a citation, of Lilly in the deleted sentence. If there was a scientific publication on the matter, where was it? Please provide the bibliographic reference. Missed the edit cycle, but "Mind in the Waters" isn't exactly what scientists would consider reliable. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Name

Dolphins are fish, this page is completely wrong. The name of the page should be Porpoise and dolphins arent related to Porpoises at all....Dolphins are small green fish also known as Maui Maui. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.51.212 (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, to most of the world, the word dolphin means this creature. The animal you are talking about is more often called the dolphin fish. The article on them is located at Coryphaenidae, and this can be found by following the disambiguation page at the top of this article. Hesperian 01:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, "dolphin" is a perfectly good common name for the marine mammals in Delphinidae, and is not synonymous (now) with "porpoise" (Phocaenidae). And the Hawaii'an common name for the dolphin fish is "mahi mahi", not "Maui Maui". Maui is an island. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 02:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

At first glance the entries above seem to espouse different views - however I believe both points are valid. To a large segment of the population (fishermen in the US and most everyone in other countries) it is well known that "Dolphin" can signify either of 2 completely different species - however, this is not very clear to non-fishermen who first think of Flipper - Hence I suggest that (eventhough the disambiguation link can lead you there) this be clarified by a notation at the top of the article e.g. "Term is also used to denote the gamefish also known as Mahi-Mahi/Dorado" MFoncerrada (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

And if you talk to someone that knows about aviation he might be thinking of the helicopter. There's no real reason to give this fish special treatment if you ask me. BabyNuke (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Military use

I can see having a section on military use of dolphins.

I object to the pseudonymously-authored "Earth First Journal" article being accorded WP:RS status, though. It is a credulous hack job passing along every crank statement about the military and dolphins available. Including its take in the article goes well out of NPOV. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Looked up a different reference. The main goal for the reference is to show that these rumours circulated. BabyNuke (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I did not understand Wikipedia policy to be that every crank rumor ever circulated should be dutifully recorded. I thought verifiability was, in fact, the standard for information in Wikipedia. Is there any independently verifiable source for the claims in question? If so, they should be in the article, but if not then there is no point to including them. AFAICT, no such verification is available. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 11:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The rumours have been around for decades, though hard evidence I am not aware of. Personally, I doubt that people have ever been killed by dolphins as part of a military programme. However, there is considerable evidence the US Navy had experimented with dolphins to see if they could perform such a task, most famously quoting a sort of syringe like device filled with carbon dioxide, which the dolphin would use to "tag" a diver with and in result, the CO2 would be injected into the person's body - which would then kill him because of the rapid expansion of the gas. Similar technology can be found these days in diving knifes. In any case, the article simply states that: "Such military dolphins, however, drew scrutiny during the Vietnam War when rumors circulated that dolphins were being trained by the United States Navy to kill Vietnamese divers." - it does not suggest in any way that these rumours are true, it simply states these rumours existed. Should the Aurora article be deleted, simply because it's an article about a rumoured US military programme? Also, if you're interested, google the names "Michael Greenwood" or "James Fitzpatrick". If it makes you any happier, I could stress even more that no hard evidence for this rumour exists? BabyNuke (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Greenwood and Fitzgerald are mentioned as sources in this blog article about Navy dolphins. Fitzgerald's statement in that article says nothing about lethal force being delivered to a diver by a dolphin. Greenwood's credibility on this topic is pretty much nil: note in the source for Wired's article, Greenwood is going on about Navy use of killer whales as transoceanic nuclear device delivery systems. Given the extreme set of protocols for control of nuclear devices in the hands of the US military, does it seem likely that a plan to arm a nuclear device on a marine mammal would get anywhere? Another thing would be verifying that the Navy even had orcas in the NMMP long enough to contemplate the sort of training that would be needed to substantiate the grandiose scheme Greenwood asserted.

"However, there is considerable evidence the US Navy had experimented with dolphins to see if they could perform such a task, most famously quoting a sort of syringe like device filled with carbon dioxide, which the dolphin would use to "tag" a diver with and in result, the CO2 would be injected into the person's body - which would then kill him because of the rapid expansion of the gas."

Where can I view this evidence for myself? If what you are referring to (via Greenwood) is C. Scott Johnson's invention of a CO2 powered anti-shark weapon, he himself was at pains to note that it had nothing to do with his US Navy work on dolphins. I knew Scott Johnson personally. Johnson's electric anti-shark device patent shows his general interest in developing portable anti-shark systems for divers.

The inclusion of the existence of a rumor in an encyclopedia is an implication that the rumor is founded in some manner. Notice that the Aurora (aircraft) article actually delves into the status of the rumor, revealing that the "Aurora" name is testified to have been used for the B2-Spirit project, and various budget and other sources that might bear on the issue. That was not the case for the rumors dropped into this article. So, yes, if the existence of the rumor needs to be mentioned in the article, noting that there doesn't seem to be any independently verifiable support for it would be a good thing. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 05:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, removed it - or I guess I'll put it back but with the notice. As for the CO2 weapon, I am uncertain about the origin of this, though it is referred to frequently, for example in this BBC article: "Vietnam War: Dolphins trained to tear off diving gear of Vietcong divers and drag them to interrogation, sources linked to the programme say. Syringes later placed on dolphin flippers to inject carbon dioxide into divers, who explode." - needless to say the US Navy denies this. Anyway, I just mentioned it as a curiosity and a potential method in which dolphins could've killed people, it wasn't mentioned in the article. BabyNuke (talk) 09:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Novel by Robert Merle

His novel Un animal doué de la raison (A Sentient Animal, 1967) is a Cold War satire inspired by John Lilly's studies of dolphins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhunya (talk • contribs) 20:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

dolphins' evolution

The evolution section should read "dolphins are believed to be descendents of mammals" so, I'd like it if someone would check that. Jayjayrab (talk) 13:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Dolphins ARE mammals. BabyNuke (talk) 20:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Fun Facts About Dolphins

                                                     KINGDOM: Animalia
                                                     PHYLUM: Chordata
                                                     CLASS: Mammalia
                                                     ORDER: Cetacea
                                                     SUBORDER: Odontoceli
                       DID YOU KNOW...?
                * Dolphins are endangered
                * They can breath 20 feet above water
                * Their brain is smaller than the monkey 
                * They have 99 teeth
                * Some kinds of dolphins can hold their breath for 30 minutes
                * The Boto is the largest dolphin
                * The dolphin may eat up to 30 pounds of fish a day 
                * The baby dolphin can stay with his mother for two to three years
                *The dolphin can live to be 50 years old  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.26.47 (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)