text:
Oberursel (Taunus)

Oberursel (Taunus) is a town in Germany and part of the Frankfurt Rhein-Main urban area. It is located to the north west of Frankfurt, in the Hochtaunuskreis county. It is the 13th largest town in Hesse. In 2011, the town hosted the 51st Hessentag state festival.

Extent of municipal area
The maximum distance from the northern town border to the southern border is 7.2 km the maximum distance from east to west is 13.0 km.

Altitude
 * Krebsmühle (Weißkirchen): 138 m above sea level
 * Town Hall: 198 m above sea level
 * Hohemark: 300 m above sea level
 * The nearly Grosse Feldberg is the highest spot in the Taunus: 820 m above sea level

Neighbouring communities
To the north Oberursel borders with Schmitten, to the east with Bad Homburg vor der Höhe, to the south-east with Frankfurt, to the southwest with Steinbach and to the west with Kronberg.

Town districts
Besides the town centre (including Bommersheim), Oberursel is divided into the districts Oberstedten (population 6,118), Stierstadt (5,541) and Weißkirchen (Oberursel) (5,151). Bommersheim was annexed before the municipal reform of 1972 and therefore is not an independent district.

History

The town was first mentioned as "Ursella" in 791 in a deed recording a donation to the monastery Lorsch. In the year 880 the first church in the area, called "monasterium ad ursellam", was mentioned. In 1317 the first trading activities were documented. In 1444 Oberursel was officially sanctioned as a town. Two years later, the town wall was finished. Since the town was growing so fast in the 15th century the town walls had to be expanded in 1481 towards the east. In the early 16th century a school for Latin language was established next to the church.

1535 Oberursel become property of Earl Ludwig von Stolberg-Königstein and becomes a Protestant town. 1557 Nicolaus Henricus built the first printing plant in Oberursel. 1605 due to the counter-reformation Oberursel becomes Catholic again. The most important industry in the late Middle Ages and in the early modern times was the clothier business.

During the Thirty Years' War the town was destroyed three times, in 1622 and 1645, and the number of inhabitants decreased from 1,600 to 600. During the 1645 razing, most buildings were destroyed by fire; the three surviving buildings were the old town hall, the bakery, and one apartment house near the marketplace. This is the reason why nearly all houses in the old town of Oberursel are from the 17th century.

As the town was rebuilt and grew, many mills and forges were founded along the "Urselbachtal". By 1858, industrialisation had begun in Oberursel, with several cotton-spinning mills being built. In 1860 Oberursel was linked to the railway between Bad Homburg and Frankfurt. In 1899 a subway was opened privately in the direction of Hohemark (currently Line U3).

During the Second World War, many captured American and British airmen passed through Oberursel as they were interrogated and processed into the German POW camp system at the "Durchgangslager der Luftwaffe" or "Transit Camp of the Luftwaffe" located in the town. The camp name was commonly shortened to "Dulag Luft", or simply "Dulag". Almost all allied airmen who were shot down and captured spent some time at that camp before being moved to their permanent assigned "Stalag".

After the occupation of Oberursel by the U.S. in April 1945, the "Dulag" area was taken over by the US Army. The existing buildings were transformed into Camp King, which began as an intelligence post, then later a transportation post until its de-activation in 1993. Today the former Camp King is a residential area, still populated by several former US soldiers.

Growth
In 1929 Bommersheim was annexed; in 1972 Oberstedten, Stierstadt and Weißkirchen followed.

Number of Inhabitants

 * 1542: 1,100
 * 1618: 1,600
 * 1648: 600
 * 1799: 7,999
 * 1972 (before annexations): 25,000
 * 1972 (after annexations): 37,000
 * 2001: 42,736
 * 2005: 42,839
 * 2006: 43,165

Politics
Since the 2021 municipal elections, the city council has the following distribution of seats:

Mayors

 * 1946–1960: Heinrich Kappus (CDU)
 * 1960–1972: Heinrich Beil (CDU)
 * 1972–1978: Karlheinz Pfaff (SPD)
 * 1978–1990: Rudolf Harders (CDU)
 * 1990–1996: Thomas Schadow (CDU)
 * 1996–2003: Gerd Krämer (CDU)
 * 2003-2021: Hans-Georg Brum (SPD)
 * from October 2021: Antje Runge (SPD)

Twin towns – sister cities
Oberursel (Taunus) is twinned with:
 * 🇫🇷 Épinay-sur-Seine, France (1964)
 * Koggenland, Netherlands (1971)
 * 🏴 Rushmoor, England, United Kingdom (1989)
 * 🇷🇺 Lomonosov, Russia (2004)

Culture
The "Vortaunusmuseum" is located in the central marketplace. Its exhibits illustrate the town's history and the history of soap box derbies. Soap box derbies were invented in Oberursel, and the world championship is held in Oberursel every year.

Another popular event occurring in Oberursel is the Brunnenfest, an annual village fair held in the early summer, which attracts visitors from surrounding areas and around the world.

Transport
Oberursel is located on the A661 motorway near the "Bad Homburger Kreuz", which is the interchange between the A661 and the A5 (Hannover -Frankfurt - Basel). The Frankfurt Airport is about 20 minutes away.

There are 6 regional bus lines in the town. During the weekend there is a night bus to Frankfurt. There is a rail service via a suburban transit railway (S5) and a combined tram-subway (U3). Both lines go to Frankfurt and go underground in the centre part of Frankfurt.

Economy
There are many well known companies located in Oberursel, predominantly in the IT and tourism industries.
 * Thomas Cook AG
 * Utimaco Safeware AG
 * Dimension Data Germany AG & Co (Until 2014)
 * Alte Leipziger (insurance)
 * Rolls-Royce Deutschland GmbH
 * AVIS
 * AFN ( Transmitter Weisskirchen)
 * IBM Data Center, Bommersheim
 * Dantotsu Intelligent Solutions GbR

Condor Airlines operates an office in Oberursel.

Prior to its dissolution, Aero Lloyd was headquartered in Oberursel. When Aero Flight existed, it had its head office in Oberursel.

Education

Oberursel is the educational centre of "Hochtaunuskreis" county. As well as six primary schools, one in each of the town districts, there is a grammar school, a secondary school, a secondary modern school (junior high) and a comprehensive school.

There are also two private schools, "Helen-Keller-Schule" and "Hans-Thoma-Schule", a commercial high school named "Feldbergschule", and the Frankfurt International School.

The following vocational institutions, training centres, and speciality schools are also located in Oberursel:
 * Freie Waldorfschule Vordertaunus
 * Albrecht-Strohschein-Schule (Heilpädagogische Waldorfschule)
 * Ketteler-la-Roche-Schule (Fachschule für Sozialpädagogik)
 * Lutherische Theologische Hochschule (Selbständige Evangelisch-Lutherische Kirche)
 * BASA Jugendwerkstatt Hochtaunus
 * Reformhaus-Fachakademie
 * Bildungszentrum (seither: Verwaltungsschule) der Bundesanstalt für Arbeit
 * Volkshochschule Oberursel
 * Musikschule Oberursel (Taunus)
 * Bundesjugendbildungszentrum des DGB
 * Institut für Bienenkunde

title: Oberursel (Taunus)


text:
RDU

RDU may refer to:
 * Raleigh–Durham International Airport's IATA code
 * The Raleigh–Durham area
 * RDU-FM, a New Zealand radio station
 * Red Dot United, a political party in Singapore
 * WTKK, a radio station licensed at the time to Wilson, North Carolina, which called itself "106.1 RDU"

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: RDU


text:
Talk:DNA/Archive 6

Request to make DNA a redirect to deoxyribonucleic acid
There is no need to protect this page since this page should be a disambiguation page. Bensaccount 18:58, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't see the reason for your insistence that the article DNA should be a disambiguation page, in preference to the present setup. However, neither do I see a particular reason to prefer the present setup over your proposed setup, so I will make the changes you suggest, provided no one objects within the next three days. (I will leave the article protected, no matter which title it ends up under.) -- Cyan 20:29, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Reasons:

 * 1) DNA has alternate meanings
 * 2) Deoxyribonucleic acid has just one meaning
 * 3) DNA is short for d(eoxyribo)n(ucleic) a(cid)
 * 4) The word deoxyribonucleic acid explains the structure of the molecule

-- Bensaccount

I admit the truth of the above facts, but fail to see what bearing they have on the question. I guess I wasn't clear on why it doesn't make a difference to me. From what I can see, there is little practical difference between the present setup and your proposed setup. Specifically, the very first (italicized) line in the article under the present setup informs readers of the existence of possible alternative meanings to "DNA" and gives them the link for more information. I don't understand what advantage accrues by changing the setup as you propose, but equivalently, no disadvantage will accrue, so I'm willing to make the change, provided no one expresses a substantive objection. -- Cyan 20:54, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I disagree. 98% of users who type in DNA (if not more) will be looking for this article.  What we are doing is letting the 2% of users looking for another article click twice (once to DNA, once to the disambigged page) instead of three times, and the cost is making 98% of users click twice (same as above) instead of once.  Deoxyribonucleic acid is not easy to remember or spell....hence, people will either link to DNA when writing new articles (necessitating a lot of fixing links, or just leaving it so people have to click twice) or they'll try to spell deoxyribonucleic acid in a piped link, which will be difficult and frustrating for even those of some scientific know-how.  This shift shouldn't happen, especially as it appears only one user is requesting it, and the many authors who've been here wrangling over this page seem agreed on the article's location, if nothing else. Jwrosenzweig 21:01, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 On second thought, I have just come up with some really, really good reasons not to change anything. If you check the What links here list for DNA, you will see an extensive list of articles which link to DNA rather than deoxyribonucleic acid. From this list, I draw two conclusions:

 * 1) When people create the link DNA, they want the link to go to this text, so we might as well make it easy to do so.
 * 2) Changing over to the other setup involves replacing all of the links to DNA with either deoxyribonucleic acid or DNA.

In short, changing over is a lot of work and results in a mildly less functional setup.

-- Cyan 21:11, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What im understanding is that lazyness ("I dont want to change those links") is taking priority over correctness. Bensaccount 21:38, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Then Ben, you are misunderstanding. You are being told that, because of the logistics of maintaining an encyclopedia and the desire to make information easily accessible to those accustomed to the common vernacular, the page should remain where it is. Jwrosenzweig 21:42, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I wasnt finished...

What im understanding is that lazyness ("I dont want to change those links") is taking priority over correctness. I also dont think you understand what im saying. If you move the present DNA page to deoxyribonucleic acid it would be more correct. Also if you think that most links to DNA refer to deoxyribonucleic acid then make the DNA page a redirect. Still I think that it wouldnt hurt to be correct and change the direct links (no matter how many) so that only the ambiguous links go to the DNA disambiguation page. Bensaccount 21:38, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I didn't stop you from finishing, if that comment is meant to rebuke me somehow for my earlier reply. Ben, I don't know any scientist who doesn't abbreviate Deoxyribonucleic acid as DNA, and I know tons of people who only know it as DNA.  Since we tell them in the first sentence what DNA stands for, there isn't an issue with correctness.  It is far easier linkwise, and not incorrect factually, to leave the article here.  Hence it should stay, in my opinion (and Cyan's, unless I misread Cyan badly). Jwrosenzweig 21:54, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ben, you got the laziness part right. If I thought your change would be helpful, then I would certainly do all of the sysop-privilege-requiring bits, but the tedious stuff would still be up to you. However, while your proposed setup is more correct in a technical sense, I believe that people will continue to create the link to (the technically less correct) "DNA" as opposed to the (technically more correct) "deoxyribonucleic acid". It just doesn't make sense to me to sacrifice usefulness for correctness.

You suggested that the "DNA" page should be a redirect to "deoxyribonuceic acid". This isn't a very good solution because, as you have pointed out, "DNA" can stand for more than just deoxyribonucleic acid. -- Cyan 22:12, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is getting irritating so to stop you from going back and forth with all my points I have created a pros and cons list. Feel free to add to it. If there are any controversial points put them at the bottom. Bensaccount 22:21, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Pros and cons
of:
 * 1) moving DNA to Deoxyribonucleic acid
 * 2) making DNA a redirect page.

Pros:
 * 1) DNA is short for d(eoxyribo)n(ucleic) a(cid)
 * 2) The word deoxyribonucleic acid explains the structure of the molecule
 * 3) The people who dont know what DNA stands for will be redirected to deoxyribonucleic acid.
 * 4) If you decide to go with the redirect and keep the DNA (disambiguation) page, there is no difference in ease of use.

Cons:
 * 1) DNA is far more common than "deoxyribonucleic acid" in the vernacular, which is one of our guidelines for naming conventions.
 * 2) Precedent: among other examples, NASA is actually the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, but we specifically chose to put the article at NASA as the acronym is well known, and in far more common use than the full name.

Ben, it would help if you could explain how the present setup fails to adequately inform the reader that
 * 1) DNA has alternate meanings and deoxyribonucleic acid has just one meaning
 * 2) DNA is short for d(eoxyribo)n(ucleic) a(cid)
 * 3) The word deoxyribonucleic acid explains the structure of the molecule

As far as I can see, these points are dealt with reasonably well (although not to the height of technical correctness) under the present setup.

-- Cyan 22:26, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You are twisting my words! I never said it didnt "adequately inform the reader", those were reasons for moving the page. Furthermore I think that the above sentences should be erased because they are an entirely different point!Bensaccount 22:30, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Ben, we are not trying to twist your words. Please stop getting upset.  We are pointing out that, in our opinion, you have not shown that there is any compelling need to move this page, as it is accurate and clear to the point that an altered title would be of no use in clarifying the meaning of "DNA". Jwrosenzweig 22:33, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I apologize for upsetting you. It seems I communicated badly, inadvertently making it seem that you had said something you didn't. That was certainly not my intention. -- Cyan 22:47, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ok fair about the format for DNA (disambiguation) I didnt know that.

I think it's good to point out the following, also. The only other articles that supposedly are associated with DNA are these. Douglas Adams merely because his middle initial is "N"....I have NEVER heard him called "DNA" except in the opening sentence of Wikipedia's article. If he is on rare occasions referred to as "DNA", certainly almost no one would search for him under those initials. The band "DNA", according to its own article, "DNA performed and recorded rarely" -- a band that rarely performs or records can't have made much of an impact on the music scene, and therefore will rarely be searched for. The final option is the Norwegian Labour Party -- I admit, they seem to use the acronym DNA....but only because that's their name in Norwegian. In English, it is very counterintuitive to call DNA an acronym for "Norweigan Labour Party". On the Norwegian Wikipedia, I imagine this would be an issue. Here, though, it looks to me that we're trying to help people find an author they would never search for as "DNA", a band that almost never recorded or performed, or a political party who would only be "DNA" for speakers of Norwegian. I don't understand why we think more than one or two people a month, tops, arrive at DNA looking for something else. Jwrosenzweig 22:43, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

But Ben's argument has nothing to do with usefulness and everything to do with technical correctness. I feel I understand his arguments; we just have different priorities. -- Cyan 22:46, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll grant that. I did feel it was important to note that the need for disambiguation was much slighter here than at other pages.  But if that's not Ben's argument, I'll leave this part of mine be, then. :) Jwrosenzweig 23:13, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Actually I agree...I was basing the disambiguation on past pages I have seen not on the guidelines (which I didnt know about). The redirect request remains however. Bensaccount

I took out all the pros and cons that involve making DNA a disambiguation page. Bensaccount 22:54, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So if I understand you correctly, you want text presently under the title "DNA" to be moved to "deoxyribonucleic acid", and "DNA" will be a redirect to "deoxyribonucleic acid". The only point to clarify is how do we deal with the alternate meanings presently listed in DNA (disambiguation)? Right now, the article has a pointer to the disambiguation page, but it doesn't make sense to leave the pointer in if the article isn't actually entitled "DNA". I'm open to suggestions... -- Cyan 22:59, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Leave the pointer there. The definition at the start should say something like: The word deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is...briefly defined

followed by the disambiguation link. Bensaccount 23:03, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, all of the cons no longer apply with a redirect. Bensaccount 23:05, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Ben, I would submit that they continue to apply. We're not supposed to aim at redirects.  We will still need to do all the work of shuffling links every time someone aims a link at DNA. Besides, our naming conventions are supposed to use the common name in the vernacular, which is indisputably DNA. Jwrosenzweig 23:13, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * And please don't cut cons so drastically. I've had to go back and add two that still apply.  It is especially important to be fair when you are cutting arguments raised by people who disagree with you -- cutting all the cons makes look as though you are not willing to discuss this, but want to delete and ignore the valid points that Cyan and I are raising. Jwrosenzweig 23:15, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ok I see what you mean. Apparently,

Solution
Naming conventions can take precidence over accuracy or at least balance it. This is not necessarily a bad thing as long as people know what is going on.

I withdraw my request. Bensaccount

title: Talk:DNA/Archive 6


text:
User talk:Milaiklainim~enwiki

Hello

Toki Pona Wikipedia
Hi, I'm a sysop from the Vietnamese Wikipedia. I noticed the discussions on your Toki Pona user talk page. Although it may offend some native speakers that your language skills aren't perfect, please don't give up on the little project. I basically got the Vietnamese Wikipedia going with only a rudimentary knowledge of Vietnamese, and it now has over 1,800 articles.

Even if you don't feel brave enough to create more articles and incur the wrath of native speakers, you could always use your knowledge of wikis to improve how the project looks, for example, to encourage more people to contribute.

Small language editions might not become overnight successes without native speakers, but there is certainly room to contribute. I hope that you'll continue to improve the project, because in my opinion, the variety of language editions is the most important feature of Wikipedia.

– Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs, blog) 16:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: Tok Pisin Wikipedia and Wiktionary
Good evening.

A little over a month ago I started work on reactivating the Tok Pisin Wikipedia and Wiktionary. As a result, a call has gone out to the members of the WikiProject Melanesia group for a startup group to get together to oversee the TPI reactivation project.

If you have an interest in joining and participating in this group (as I think you very well might have), would you mind going to the main page of WikiProject Melanesia and sign on as another one of the participants in the WikiProject?

I think you might be interested in the fact that one of the proposals (mine) for the TPI Wikipedia is that the Wiki be bilingual, that is, with a close English translation provided for each of the Tok Pisin articles, and vice-versa. I've also suggested that the TPI Wiktionary be bilingual, i.e., providing a page for an English equivalent of a Tok Pisin word, and again vice-versa. I've tested the bilingual concept in the TPI Wikipedia at "Papua Niugini" and a subpage with a test "translation" at "Papua Niugini/English". I also tested the concept in the TPI Wiktionary for the TP word "wanbel", which has a link to the English translation "(to) agree". There's a table in the def. for "wanbel" that has translations of the term in several other languages. I've put links in two of the translations (German and French) which link directly to the page in those languages where the equivalent of "wanbel" is given. I think you'll agree that the close translation concept makes the Wikis exceptionally useful as learning documents for both native and non-native speakers of Tok Pisin. Bilinguality gives both sides an opportunity to write about Melanesian and related subjects, and gives both sides an excellent opportunity to learn Tok Pisin and English by having "Rosetta stones" as translation guides.

If you then go to WikiProject Melanesia/Tok Pisin you'll find the purpose of the reactivation of the TPI Wikis given on that subpage. The subpage has been created for general discussions about Tok Pisin and the reactivation projects. I've created two additional subpages under the "Tok Pisin" subpage, one for discussions about the TPI Wikipedia, and another for discussions about the TPI Wiktionary.

I'm hopeful that together we can form a group of interested authors/editors/tech specialist that will make the TPI Wikipedia and Wiktionary two very useful regional Internet references, i.e., that the primary focus of the Wikis will be PNG and the surrounding regions, Oceania, and the Pacific Rim countries. I believe the TPI Wikipedia should be encyclopedic, but focus closely on the flora, fauna, people and institutions of Melanesia, Oceania, and the Pacific Rim rather than the world in general, as is being done in all the other international Wikipedias.

Well, rather long-winded of me, but that's how I am. So anyway, I do hope that youl join our "TPI reactivation" group. But if not, I hope that, given your interest in Melanesia, that you will at least sign up as a participant in the WikiProject Melanesia group.

Thanks/very best regards. K. Kellogg-Smith 02:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC) (Ken)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Milaiklainim. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Milaiklainim~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 01:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Milaiklainim~enwiki


text:
Grace (Jeff Buckley album)

Grace is the only studio album by American singer-songwriter Jeff Buckley, released on August 23, 1994, by Columbia Records. The album had poor sales and received mixed reviews at the time of its release. However, in recent years, it has dramatically risen in critical reputation. An extended version of the album (subtitled "Legacy Edition"), celebrating its tenth anniversary, was released on August 23, 2004, and peaked at number 44 in the UK.

Grace re-entered the albums chart in Australia at number 44 for the week of January 29 to February 5, 2007, 13 years after its original release date. It is currently certified 8× platinum in Australia. The album has been cited by critics and listeners as one of the greatest albums of all time.

Music
Buckley's version of "Corpus Christi Carol" was based on a version by Janet Baker. A childhood friend introduced him to the song, and Buckley sang a version on the album as a way of thanking him.

Critical reception and legacy
Grace has been highly rated in magazines such as Q, in which readers voted Grace the 75th greatest album of all time in 1998; the same vote was taken again in 2005 and Grace then ranked 13th. In 2003, the album was ranked number 303 on Rolling Stone ' s list of the 500 greatest albums of all time, and 304 in a 2012 revised list, and later 147 in the 2020 list. In 2006, Mojo named Grace the No. 1 Modern Rock Classic of All Time. It was also rated as Australia's second favourite album on My Favourite Album, a television special aired by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on December 3, 2006. In 2003, Buckley's cover of Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah" was ranked No. 259 on Rolling Stone ' s list of the 500 greatest songs of all time. VH1 also rated the album No. 73 on its "100 Greatest Albums of Rock & Roll" show/list. It was voted number 99 in the third edition of Colin Larkin's All Time Top 1000 Albums (2000). Larkin stated "his music achieved a perfection that was staggering for a debut album."

Grace won appreciation from a host of revered musicians and artists, including members of Buckley's biggest influence, Led Zeppelin. Jimmy Page considered Grace close to being his "favorite album of the decade". Robert Plant was also complimentary, as was Brad Pitt, saying of Buckley's work, "There's an undercurrent to his music, there's something you can't pinpoint. Like the best of films, or the best of art, there's something going on underneath, and there's a truth there. And I find his stuff absolutely haunting. It just... it's under my skin." Others who had influenced Buckley's music lauded him: Bob Dylan named Buckley "one of the great songwriters of this decade", and David Bowie considered Grace to be the best album ever made, and had said it would be one of his ten "Desert Island Records."

In 2006, British Hit Singles & Albums and NME organised a poll of which, 40,000 people worldwide voted for the 100 best albums ever and Grace was placed at No. 23 on the list.

On 2 April 2014, it was announced that Buckley's version of "Hallelujah" would be inducted into the Library of Congress' National Recording Registry; the entire album has yet to be inducted.

In July 2014, Guitar World ranked Grace at number 26 in their "Superunknown: 50 Iconic Albums That Defined 1994" list.

Accolades
* denotes an unranked list.

Singles and EPs
Four proper singles were released from the album, along with additional editions, two posthumous releases, and promo-only releases (see also: The Grace EPs).

Posthumous
Buckley's cover version of "Hallelujah" re-entered the UK Singles Chart at number 2 during Christmas 2008, following the release of another cover version by series 5 of the British version of The X Factor winner Alexandra Burke which took the number 1 slot.

 * Singles
 * "Forget Her" (August 2004)
 * "Hallelujah" (May 2007)

Track listing
To promote Buckley's 1995 Australian tour, a two-CD edition was issued. It featured the following songs on the second disc:
 * 1) "So Real" – live and acoustic in Japan, January 1995
 * 2) "Dream Brother" – live in Hamburg at Club Logo, 22 February 1995
 * 3) "Grace" – live at the Shepherd's Bush Empire, London, 4 March 1995 (exclusive to this release)
 * 4) "Mojo Pin" – live at Wetlands, New York City, November 1994

Track listing

 * Disc one: Remastered edition of the original 10-track album.

Personnel
Credits adapted from Grace's liner notes. Additional Performers
 * Jeff Buckley – vocals, guitars, harmonium (on "Lover, You Should've Come Over"), organ, dulcimer, additional tabla (on "Dream Brother"), production (on "So Real")
 * Mick Grøndahl – bass
 * Matt Johnson – drums, percussion, vibraphone (on "Dream Brother")
 * Michael Tighe – guitar (on "So Real")
 * Gary Lucas – "Magical Guitarness" (on "Mojo Pin" and "Grace")
 * Loris Holland – organ (on "Lover, You Should've Come Over")
 * Misha Masud – tabla (on "Dream Brother")
 * Karl Berger – string arrangements

Technical Personnel
 * Andy Wallace – production, engineering, mixing
 * Howie Weinberg – mastering
 * Steve Berkowitz – executive producer
 * Clif Norrell – engineering (on "So Real"), additional engineering ("Corpus Christi Carol" and "Dream Brother")
 * Chris Laidlaw – assistant engineer
 * Steve Sisco – assistant engineer
 * Bryant W. Jackson – assistant engineer
 * Reggie Griffith – assistant engineer
 * Nicky Lindeman – art direction, design
 * Christopher Austopchuk – art direction, design
 * Jennifer Cohen – design assistant
 * Merri Cyr – photography
 * David Gahr – photography

title: Grace (Jeff Buckley album)


text:
Spirit of Tasmania (disambiguation)

Spirit of Tasmania is best known as the trading name of TT-Line (Australia).

It can also refer to the following ferries that have been operated by the business at some time during their careers:

 * Spirit of Tasmania - serviced the Devonport-Melbourne route, 1994-2002 - now known as MS Princess Seaways
 * Spirit of Tasmania I - in service, Devonport-Melbourne, 2002-present
 * Spirit of Tasmania II - in service, Devonport-Melbourne, 2002-present
 * Spirit of Tasmania III - serviced the Devonport-Sydney route, 2003-2006 - now known as MS Mega Express Four
 * Spirit of Tasmania IV - to commence service in 2023
 * Spirit of Tasmania V - to commence service in 2024

title: Spirit of Tasmania (disambiguation)


text:
San Pedro Bay

San Pedro Bay may refer to:

 * San Pedro Bay (Philippines), a small bay on Leyte
 * San Pedro Bay (California), an inlet on the Pacific coast of the United States
 * San Pedro Bay (Florida), a swamp and wildlife management area in north central Florida
 * San Pedro Bay (Chile), an open bay in Los Lagos Region

title: San Pedro Bay


text:
Sumatran rhinoceros

The Sumatran rhinoceros (Dicerorhinus sumatrensis), also known as the Sumatran rhino, hairy rhinoceros or Asian two-horned rhinoceros, is a rare member of the family Rhinocerotidae and one of five extant species of rhinoceros; it is the only extant species of the genus Dicerorhinus. It is the smallest rhinoceros, although it is still a large mammal; it stands 112 - 145 cm high at the shoulder, with a head-and-body length of 2.36 - 3.18 m and a tail of 35 - 70 cm. The weight is reported to range from 500 - 1000 kg, averaging 700 - 800 kg. Like both African species, it has two horns; the larger is the nasal horn, typically 15 - 25 cm, while the other horn is typically a stub. A coat of reddish-brown hair covers most of the Sumatran rhino's body.

The Sumatran rhinoceros once inhabited rainforests, swamps and cloud forests in India, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Laos, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and southwestern China, particularly in Sichuan. It is now critically endangered, with only five substantial populations in the wild: four in Sumatra and one in Borneo, with an estimated total population of fewer than 80 mature individuals. The species was extirpated in Malaysia in 2019, and one of the Sumatran populations may already be extinct. In 2015, researchers announced that the Bornean rhinoceros had become extinct in the northern part of Borneo in Sabah, Malaysia. A tiny population was discovered in East Kalimantan in early 2016.

The Sumatran rhino is a mostly solitary animal except for courtship and offspring-rearing. It is the most vocal rhino species and also communicates through marking soil with its feet, twisting saplings into patterns, and leaving excrement. The species is much better studied than the similarly reclusive Javan rhinoceros, in part because of a program that brought 40 Sumatran rhinos into captivity with the goal of preserving the species. There was little or no information about procedures that would assist in ex situ breeding. Though a number of rhinos died once at the various destinations and no offspring were produced for nearly 20 years, the rhinos were all doomed in their soon-to-be-logged forest. In March 2016, a Sumatran rhinoceros (of the Bornean rhinoceros subspecies) was spotted in Indonesian Borneo.

The Indonesian ministry of Environment, began an official counting of the Sumatran rhino in February 2019, planned to be completed in three years. Malaysia's last known bull and cow Sumatran rhinos died in May and November 2019, respectively. The species is now considered to be locally extinct in that country, and only survives in Indonesia. There are fewer than 80 left in existence.

Taxonomy and naming
The first documented Sumatran rhinoceros was shot 16 km outside Fort Marlborough, near the west coast of Sumatra, in 1793. Drawings of the animal, and a written description, were sent to the naturalist Joseph Banks, then president of the Royal Society of London, who published a paper on the specimen that year. In 1814, the species was given a scientific name by Johann Fischer von Waldheim.

The specific epithet sumatrensis signifies "of Sumatra", the Indonesian island where the rhinos were first discovered. Carl Linnaeus originally classified all rhinos in the genus, Rhinoceros; therefore, the species was originally identified as Rhinoceros sumatrensis or sumatranus. Joshua Brookes considered the Sumatran rhinoceros with its two horns a distinct genus from the one-horned Rhinoceros, and gave it the name Didermocerus in 1828. Constantin Wilhelm Lambert Gloger proposed the name Dicerorhinus in 1841. In 1868, John Edward Gray proposed the name Ceratorhinus. Normally, the oldest name would be used, but a 1977 ruling by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature established the proper genus name as Dicerorhinus. Dicerorhinus comes from the Greek terms di (δι, meaning "two"), cero (κέρας, meaning "horn"), and rhinos (ρινος, meaning "nose").

The three subspecies are:

D. s. sumatrensis, known as the western Sumatran rhinoceros, which has only 75 to 85 rhinos remaining, mostly in the national parks of Bukit Barisan Selatan and Kerinci Seblat, Gunung Leuser in Sumatra, but also in Way Kambas National Park in small numbers. They have recently gone extinct in Peninsular Malaysia. The main threats against this subspecies are habitat loss and poaching. A slight genetic difference is noted between the western Sumatran and Bornean rhinos. The rhinos in Peninsular Malaysia were once known as D. s. niger, but were later recognized to be a synonym of D. s. sumatrensis. Three bulls and five cows currently live in captivity at the Sumatran Rhino Sanctuary at Way Kambas, the youngest bull having been bred and born there in 2012. Another calf, a female, was born at the sanctuary in May 2016. The sanctuary's two bulls were born at the Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden. A third calf female was born in March 2022.

D. s. harrissoni, known as the Bornean rhinoceros or eastern Sumatran rhinoceros, which was once common throughout Borneo; now only about 15 individuals are estimated to survive. The known population lives in East Kalimantan, with them having recently gone extinct in Sabah. Reports of animals surviving in Sarawak are unconfirmed. This subspecies is named after Tom Harrisson, who worked extensively with Bornean zoology and anthropology in the 1960s. The Bornean subspecies is markedly smaller in body size than the other two subspecies. The captive population consisted of one bull and two cows at the Borneo Rhinoceros Sanctuary in Sabah; the bull died in 2019 and the cows died in 2017 and 2019 respectively.

D. s. lasiotis, known as the northern Sumatran rhinoceros or Chittagong rhinoceros, which once roamed India and Bangladesh, has been declared extinct in these countries. Unconfirmed reports suggest a small population may still survive in Myanmar, but the political situation in that country has prevented verification. The name lasiotis is derived from the Greek for "hairy-ears". Later studies showed that their ear hair was not longer than other Sumatran rhinos, but D. s. lasiotis remained a subspecies because it was significantly larger than the other subspecies.

Evolution
Ancestral rhinoceroses first diverged from other perissodactyls in the Early Eocene. Mitochondrial DNA comparison suggests the ancestors of modern rhinos split from the ancestors of Equidae around 50 million years ago. The extant family, the Rhinocerotidae, first appeared in the Late Eocene in Eurasia, and the ancestors of the extant rhino species dispersed from Asia beginning in the Miocene.

Although the relationships of modern rhinoceros species to each other were long controversial, modern genetic evidence has placed the Sumatran rhinoceros as more closely related to the Asian one-horned rhinoceroses (the Indian rhinoceros and Javan rhinoceros) belonging to the genus Rhinoceros than to living African rhinoceros species, with the split between Rhinoceros and Dicerorhinus estimated to have occurred around 14.8 million years ago, shortly after the split between the ancestors of Dicerorhinus and Rhinoceros and African rhinoceroses, which is placed around 15.6 million years ago.

Based on morphological and genetic evidence, the Sumatran rhinoceros is believed to be closely related to the extinct woolly rhinoceros (Coelodonta antiquitatis) and Stephanorhinus, with the split between their last common ancestors estimated to be around 9.5 million years ago. The woolly rhinoceros, so named for the coat of hair it shares with the Sumatran rhinoceros, first appeared in China; by the Upper Pleistocene, it ranged across the Eurasian continent from Korea to Spain. The woolly rhinoceros survived until its extinction near the end of the last ice age, around 14,000 years ago. Stephanorhinus species are well known in Europe from the Late Pliocene through the Pleistocene, and China from the Pleistocene, with two species, Stephanorhinus kirchbergensis and the Stephanorhinus hemitoechus surviving into the last glacial period, until at least 40,000 years ago and possibly later.

Although historically many fossil species were assigned to Dicerorhinus  today only two fossil species are confidently placed in the genus. These include Dicerorhinus fusuiensis from the Early Pleistocene of South China, and Dicerorhinus gwebinensis from the Pliocene-Early Pleistocene of Myanmar. Fossils of the modern Sumatran rhinceros are known from the Early Pleistocene onwards.

Pairwise sequential Markovian coalescent (PSMC) analysis of a complete nuclear genome of a Sumatran specimen suggested strong fluctuations in population size, with a general trend of decline over the course of the Middle to Late Pleistocene with an estimated peak effective population size of 57,800 individuals 950,000 years ago, declining to around 500–1,300 individuals at the start of the Holocene, with a slight rebound during the Eemian Interglacial. This was likely due to climate change causing limiting suitable habitat for the Rhinoceros, causing severe population fluctuations as well as population fragmentation due to the flooding of Sundaland. Human induced habitat change and hunting may have played a role in the Late Pleistocene. The study was later criticised for not including DNA from extinct mainland populations, which would have provided a holistic account. A Bayesian skyline plot of complete Mitochondrial genomes from multiple individuals from across the range of the species suggested that the population had been relatively stable with an effective population size of 40,000 individuals over the last 400,000 years, with a sharp decline starting around 25,000 years ago.

Cladogram showing the relationships of recent and Late Pleistocene rhinoceros species (minus Stephanorhinus hemitoechus) based on whole nuclear genomes, after Liu et al, 2021:

Description
A mature Sumatran rhino stands about 112 - 145 cm high at the shoulder, has a body length of around 236 - 318 cm, and weighs 500 - 800 kg, though the largest individuals in zoos have been known to weigh as much as 2000 kg. Like the two African species, it has two horns. The larger is the nasal horn, typically only 15 - 25 cm, though the longest recorded specimen was much longer at 81 cm. The posterior horn is much smaller, usually less than 10 cm long, and often little more than a knob. The larger nasal horn is also known as the anterior horn; the smaller posterior horn is known as the frontal horn. The horns are dark grey or black in color. The bulls have larger horns than the cows, though the species is not otherwise sexually dimorphic. The Sumatran rhino lives an estimated 30–45 years in the wild, while the record time in captivity is a female D. lasiotis, which lived for 32 years and 8 months before dying in the London Zoo in 1900.

Two thick folds of skin encircle the body behind the front legs and before the hind legs. The rhino has a smaller fold of skin around its neck. The skin itself is thin, 10 - 16 mm, and in the wild, the rhino appears to have no subcutaneous fat. Hair can range from dense (the most dense hair in young calves) to scarce, and is usually a reddish brown. In the wild, this hair is hard to observe because the rhinos are often covered in mud. In captivity, however, the hair grows out and becomes much shaggier, likely because of less abrasion from walking through vegetation. The rhino has a patch of long hair around its ears and a thick clump of hair at the end of its tail. Like all rhinos, they have very poor vision. The Sumatran rhinoceros is fast and agile; it climbs mountains easily and comfortably traverses steep slopes and riverbanks.

Distribution and habitat
The Sumatran rhinoceros lives in both lowland and highland secondary rainforest, swamps, and cloud forests. It inhabits hilly areas close to water, particularly steep upper valleys with copious undergrowth. The Sumatran rhinoceros once inhabited a continuous range as far north as Myanmar, eastern India, and Bangladesh. Unconfirmed reports also placed it in Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam. All known living animals occur in the island of Sumatra. Some conservationists hope Sumatran rhinos may still survive in Burma, though it is considered unlikely. Political turmoil in Burma has prevented any assessment or study of possible survivors. The last reports of stray animals from Indian limits were in the 1990s.

The Sumatran rhino is widely scattered across its range, much more so than the other Asian rhinos, which has made it difficult for conservationists to protect members of the species effectively. Only four areas are known to contain Sumatran rhinoceros: Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park, Gunung Leuser National Park, and Way Kambas National Park on Sumatra; and on Indonesian Borneo west of Samarindah.

The Kerinci Seblat National Park, Sumatra's largest, was estimated to contain a population of around 500 rhinos in the 1980s, but due to poaching, this population is now considered extinct. The survival of any animals in Peninsular Malaysia is extremely unlikely.

Genetic analysis of Sumatran rhino populations has identified three distinct genetic lineages. The channel between Sumatra and Malaysia was not as significant a barrier for the rhinos as the Barisan Mountains along the length of Sumatra, for rhinos in eastern Sumatra and Peninsular Malaysia are more closely related than the rhinos on the other side of the mountains in western Sumatra. In fact, the eastern Sumatra and Malaysia rhinos show so little genetic variance, the populations were likely not separate during the Pleistocene, when sea levels were much lower and Sumatra formed part of the mainland. Both populations of Sumatra and Malaysia, however, are close enough genetically that interbreeding would not be problematic. The rhinos of Borneo are sufficiently distinct that conservation geneticists have advised against crossing their lineages with the other populations. Conservation geneticists have recently begun to study the diversity of the gene pool within these populations by identifying microsatellite loci. The results of initial testing found levels of variability within Sumatran rhino populations comparable to those in the population of the less endangered African rhinos, but the genetic diversity of Sumatran rhinos is an area of continuing study.

Although the rhino had been thought to be extinct in Kalimantan since the 1990s, in March 2013 World Wildlife Fund (WWF) announced that the team when monitoring orangutan activity found in West Kutai Regency, East Kalimantan, several fresh rhino foot trails, mud holes, traces of rhino-rubbed trees, traces of rhino horns on the walls of mud holes, and rhino bites on small branches. The team also identified that rhinos ate more than 30 species of plants. On 2 October 2013, video images made with camera traps showing the Sumatran rhino in Kutai Barat, Kalimantan, were released by the World Wildlife Fund. Experts assume the videos show two different animals, but aren't quite certain. According to the Indonesia's Minister of Forestry, Zulkifli Hasan called the video evidence "very important" and mentioned Indonesia's "target of rhino population growth by three percent per year". On 22 March 2016 it was announced by the WWF that a live Sumatran rhino was found in Kalimantan; it was the first contact in over 40 years. The rhino, a female, was captured and transported to a nearby sanctuary to ensure her survival.

Iman, the last known Sumatran rhino in Malaysia, died in November 2019; stem cell technology is being used in an attempt to revitalize the rhino's population and reverse extinction in the country. As of 2023, there has been two births at the Sumatran Rhino Sanctuary at Way Kambas National Park, Indonesia.

Behavior and ecology
Sumatran rhinos are solitary creatures except for pairing before mating and during offspring rearing. Individuals have home ranges; bulls have territories as large as 50 km2, whereas cows' ranges are 10 - 15 km2. The ranges of cows appear to be spaced apart; bulls' ranges often overlap. No evidence indicates Sumatran rhinos defend their territories through fighting. Marking their territories is done by scraping soil with their feet, bending saplings into distinctive patterns, and leaving excrement. The Sumatran rhino is usually most active when eating, at dawn, and just after dusk. During the day, they wallow in mud baths to cool down and rest. In the rainy season, they move to higher elevations; in the cooler months, they return to lower areas in their range. When mud holes are unavailable, the rhino will deepen puddles with its feet and horns. The wallowing behaviour helps the rhino maintain its body temperature and protect its skin from ectoparasites and other insects. Captive specimens, deprived of adequate wallowing, have quickly developed broken and inflamed skins, suppurations, eye problems, inflamed nails, and hair loss, and have eventually died. One 20-month study of wallowing behavior found they will visit no more than three wallows at any given time. After two to 12 weeks using a particular wallow, the rhino will abandon it. Typically, the rhino will wallow around midday for two to three hours at a time before venturing out for food. Although in zoos the Sumatran rhino has been observed wallowing less than 45 minutes a day, the study of wild animals found 80–300 minutes (an average of 166 minutes) per day spent in wallows. There has been little opportunity to study epidemiology in the Sumatran rhinoceros. Ticks and gyrostigma were reported to cause deaths in captive animals in the 19th century. The rhino is also known to be vulnerable to the blood disease surra, which can be spread by horse-flies carrying parasitic trypanosomes; in 2004, all five rhinos at the Sumatran Rhinoceros Conservation Center died over an 18-day period after becoming infected by the disease. The Sumatran rhino has no known predators other than humans. Tigers and wild dogs may be capable of killing a calf, but calves stay close to their mothers, and the frequency of such killings is unknown. Although the rhino's range overlaps with elephants and tapirs, the species do not appear to compete for food or habitat. Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) and Sumatran rhinos are even known to share trails, and many smaller species, such as deer, boars, and wild dogs, will use the trails the rhinos and elephants create.

The Sumatran rhino maintains two types of trails across its range. Main trails will be used by generations of rhinos to travel between important areas in the rhino's range, such as between salt licks, or in corridors through inhospitable terrain that separates ranges. In feeding areas, the rhinos will make smaller trails, still covered by vegetation, to areas containing food the rhino eats. Sumatran rhino trails have been found that cross rivers deeper than 1.5 m and about 50 m across. The currents of these rivers are known to be strong, but the rhino is a strong swimmer. A relative absence of wallows near rivers in the range of the Sumatran rhinoceros indicates they may occasionally bathe in rivers in lieu of wallowing.

Diet
Most feeding occurs just before nightfall and in the morning. The Sumatran rhino is a folivore, with a diet of young saplings, leaves, twigs, and shoots. The rhinos usually consume up to 50 kg of food a day. Primarily by measuring dung samples, researchers have identified more than 100 food species consumed by the Sumatran rhinoceros. The largest portion of the diet is tree saplings with a trunk diameter of 1 –. The rhinoceros typically pushes these saplings over with its body, walking over the sapling without stepping on it, to eat the leaves. Many of the plant species the rhino consumes exist in only small portions, which indicates the rhino is frequently changing its diet and feeding in different locations. Among the most common plants the rhino eats are many species from the Euphorbiaceae, Rubiaceae, and Melastomataceae families. The most common species the rhino consumes is Eugenia.

The vegetal diet of the Sumatran rhinoceros is high in fiber and only moderate in protein. Salt licks are very important to the nutrition of the rhino. These licks can be small hot springs, seepages of salty water, or mud-volcanoes. The salt licks also serve an important social purpose for the rhinos—bulls visit the licks to pick up the scent of cows in oestrus. Some Sumatran rhinos, however, live in areas where salt licks are not readily available, or the rhinos have not been observed using the licks. These rhinos may get their necessary mineral requirements by consuming plants rich in minerals.

Communication
The Sumatran rhinoceros is the most vocal of the rhinoceros species. Observations of the species in zoos show the animal almost constantly vocalizing, and it is known to do so in the wild, as well. The rhino makes three distinct noises: eeps, whales, and whistle-blows. The eep, a short, one-second-long yelp, is the most common sound. The whale, named for its similarity to vocalizations of the humpback whale, is the most song-like vocalization and the second-most common. The whale varies in pitch and lasts from four to seven seconds. The whistle-blow is named because it consists of a two-second-long whistling noise and a burst of air in immediate succession. The whistle-blow is the loudest of the vocalizations, loud enough to make the iron bars in the zoo enclosure where the rhinos were studied vibrate. The purpose of the vocalizations is unknown, though they are theorized to convey danger, sexual readiness, and location, as do other ungulate vocalizations. The whistle-blow could be heard at a great distance, even in the dense brush in which the Sumatran rhino lives. A vocalization of similar volume from elephants has been shown to carry 9.8 km and the whistle-blow may carry as far. The Sumatran rhinoceros will sometimes twist the saplings they do not eat. This twisting behavior is believed to be used as a form of communication, frequently indicating a junction in a trail.

Reproduction
Cows become sexually mature at the age of six to seven years, while bulls become sexually mature at about 10 years old. The gestation period is around 15–16 months. The calf, which typically weighs 40 –, is weaned after about 15 months and stays with its mother for the first two to three years of its life. In the wild, the birth interval for this species is estimated to be four to five years; its natural offspring-rearing behavior is unstudied.

The reproductive habits of the Sumatran rhinoceros have been studied in captivity. Sex relationships begin with a courtship period characterized by increased vocalization, tail raising, urination, and increased physical contact, with both bull and cow using their snouts to bump the other in the head and genitals. The pattern of courtship is most similar to that of the black rhinoceros. Young Sumatran rhino bulls are often too aggressive with cows, sometimes injuring and even killing them during the courtship. In the wild, the cow could run away from an overly aggressive bull, but in their smaller captive enclosures, they cannot; this inability to escape aggressive bulls may partly contribute to the low success rate of captive-breeding programs.

The period of oestrus itself, when the cow is receptive to the bull, lasts about 24 hours, and observations have placed its recurrence between 21 and 25 days. Sumatran rhinos in the Cincinnati Zoo have been observed copulating for 30–50 minutes, similar in length to other rhinos; observations at the Sumatran Rhinoceros Conservation Centre in Malaysia have shown a briefer copulation cycle. As the Cincinnati Zoo has had successful pregnancies, and other rhinos also have lengthy copulatory periods, a lengthy rut may be the natural behavior. Though researchers observed successful conceptions, all these pregnancies ended in failure for a variety of reasons until the first successful captive birth in 2001; studies of these failures at the Cincinnati Zoo discovered the Sumatran rhino's ovulation is induced by mating and it had unpredictable progesterone levels. Breeding success was finally achieved in 2001, 2004, and 2007 by providing a pregnant rhino with supplementary progestin. In 2016, a calf was born in captivity in western Indonesia, only the fifth such birth in a breeding facility. In March 2022, and 1 October 2023, female calves were born at the Sumatran Rhino Sanctuary (SRS), as well as a male calf born on November 25, 2023. Way Kambas National Park, Lampung province, Indonesia.

In the wild
Sumatran rhinos were once quite numerous throughout Southeast Asia. Fewer than 100 individuals are now estimated to remain. The species is classed as critically endangered (primarily due to illegal poaching) while the last survey in 2008 estimated that around 250 individuals survived. From the early 1990s, the population decline was estimated at more than 50% per decade, and the small, scattered populations now face high risks of inbreeding depression. Most remaining habitat is in relatively inaccessible mountainous areas of Indonesia.

Poaching of Sumatran rhinos is a cause for concern, due to the high market price of its horns. This species has been overhunted for many centuries, leading to the current greatly reduced and still declining population. The rhinos are difficult to observe and hunt directly (one field researcher spent seven weeks in a treehide near a salt lick without ever observing a rhino directly), so poachers make use of spear traps and pit traps. In the 1970s, uses of the rhinoceros's body parts among the local people of Sumatra were documented, such as the use of rhino horns in amulets and a folk belief that the horns offer some protection against poison. Dried rhinoceros meat was used as medicine for diarrhea, leprosy, and tuberculosis. "Rhino oil", a concoction made from leaving a rhino's skull in coconut oil for several weeks, may be used to treat skin diseases. The extent of use and belief in these practices is not known. Rhinoceros horn was once believed to be widely used as an aphrodisiac; in fact traditional Chinese medicine never used it for this purpose. Nevertheless, hunting in this species has primarily been driven by a demand for rhino horns with unproven medicinal properties.

The rainforests of Indonesia and Malaysia, which the Sumatran rhino inhabits, are also targets for legal and illegal logging because of the desirability of their hardwoods. Rare woods such as merbau, meranti and semaram are valuable on the international markets, fetching as much as $1,800 per m3 ($1,375 per cu yd). Enforcement of illegal-logging laws is difficult because humans live within or near many of the same forests as the rhino. The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake has been used to justify new logging. Although the hardwoods in the rainforests of the Sumatran rhino are destined for international markets and not widely used in domestic construction, the number of logging permits for these woods has increased dramatically because of the tsunami. However, while this species has been suggested to be highly sensitive to habitat disturbance, apparently it is of little importance compared to hunting, as it can withstand more or less any forest condition. Nevertheless, the main cause of drastic reduction of the species is likely caused by the Allee effect.

The Bornean rhino in Sabah was confirmed to be extinct in the wild in April 2015, with only 3 individuals left in captivity. The mainland Sumatran rhino in Malaysia was confirmed to be extinct in the wild in August 2015. In March 2016 there was a rare sighting of a Sumatran rhino in East Kalimantan, the Indonesian part of Borneo. The last time there was a Sumatran rhino in the Kalimantan area was approximately 40 years ago. This optimism was met with despair as the same rhino named Najaq was found dead several weeks after the sighting. The cause of death was infection on the wound caused by snare.

In captivity
Sumatran rhinos do not thrive outside of their ecosystem. London Zoo acquired a bull and cow in 1872 that had been captured in Chittagong in 1868. The female named "Begum" survived until 1900, the record lifetime for a captive rhino. Begum was one of at least seven specimens of the extinct subspecies D. s. lasiotis that were held in zoos and circuses. In 1972, Subur, the only Sumatran rhino remaining in captivity, died at the Copenhagen Zoo.

Despite the species' persistent lack of reproductive success, in the early 1980s, some conservation organizations began a captive-breeding program for the Sumatran rhinoceros. Between 1984 and 1996, this ex situ conservation program transported 40 Sumatran rhinos from their native habitats to zoos and reserves across the world. While hopes were initially high, and much research was conducted on the captive specimens, by the late 1990s, not a single rhino had been born in the program, and most of its proponents agreed the program had been a failure. In 1997, the IUCN's Asian rhino specialist group, which once endorsed the program, declared it had failed "even maintaining the species within acceptable limits of mortality", noting that, in addition to the lack of births, 20 of the captured rhinos had died. In 2004, a surra outbreak at the Sumatran Rhinoceros Conservation Centre killed all the captive rhinos in Peninsular Malaysia, reducing the population of captive rhinos to eight. Seven of these captive rhinos were sent to the United States, and three to Port Lympne Zoo in the United Kingdom (the other was kept in Southeast Asia), but by 1997, their numbers had dwindled to three: a cow in the Los Angeles Zoo, a bull in the Cincinnati Zoo, and a cow in the Bronx Zoo. In a final effort, the three rhinos were united in Cincinnati. After years of failed attempts, the cow from Los Angeles, Emi, became pregnant for the sixth time, with the zoo's bull Ipuh. All five of her previous pregnancies ended in failure. Reproductive physiologist at the Cincinnati Zoo, Terri Roth, had learned from previous failures, though, and with the aid of special hormone treatments, Emi gave birth to a healthy male calf named Andalas (an Indonesian literary word for Sumatra) in September 2001. Andalas's birth was the first successful captive birth of a Sumatran rhino in 112 years. A female calf, named "Suci" (Indonesian for "pure"), followed on 30 July 2004. On 29 April 2007, Emi gave birth a third time, to her second male calf, named Harapan (Indonesian for "hope") or Harry. In 2007, Andalas, who had been living at the Los Angeles Zoo, was returned to Sumatra to take part in breeding programs with healthy females, leading to the siring and 23 June 2012 birth of male calf Andatu, the fourth captive-born calf of the era; Andalas had been mated with Ratu, a wild-born cow living in the Rhino Sanctuary at Way Kambas National Park.

Despite the recent successes in Cincinnati, the captive-breeding program has remained controversial. Proponents argue that the zoos have not only aided the conservation effort by studying the reproductive habits, raising public awareness and education about the rhinos, helping raise financial resources for conservation efforts in Sumatra but, moreover, to have established a small captive breeding group. Opponents of the captive breeding program argue that the losses are too great; the program is too expensive; removing rhinos from their habitat, even temporarily, alters their ecological role; and captive populations cannot match the rate of recovery seen in well-protected native habitats. In October 2015, Harapan, the last rhino in the Western Hemisphere, left the Cincinnati Zoo to Indonesia.

In August 2016, there were only three Sumatran rhinos left in Malaysia, all in captivity in the eastern state of Sabah: A bull named Tam and two cows named Puntung and Iman. In June 2017, Puntung was put down due to skin cancer. Tam died on 27 May 2019 and Iman died of cancer on 23 November 2019 at the Borneo Rhino Sanctuary. The species became extinct in Malaysia, its native land in 2019.

In Indonesia, meanwhile, a seventh rhino increased the group at the Sumatran Rhino Sanctuary, in Way Kambas NP. A female was born on 12 May 2016, named Delilah. Another female, daughter of Andatu and Rosa, was born on 24 March 2022, named Sedah Mirah. A female was born on 30 September 2023, the third child of Andalas-Ratu pair. A male calf was born on 26 November 2023, son of Delilah and Harapan.

In Indonesian East Kalimantan, only one old (estimated to be 35 to 40 years old) female named Pahu lives in Sumatran Rhino Sanctuary (SRS) Kelian, West Kutai after being captured in 2018, another identified is Pari, a female who lives in the wild in Sungai Ratah-Sungai Nyuatan-Sungai Lawa protected forest. On 31 October 2023, conservationists in Indonesia said they have extracted eggs from Pahu, who were too old and small to breed with the Sumatran subspecies, the eggs are currently planned to be fertilized with sperms from captive male Sumatran rhino before implanted in female Sumatran rhino in SRS Way Kambas.

Cultural depictions
Aside from those few individuals kept in zoos and pictured in books, the Sumatran rhinoceros has remained little known, overshadowed by the more common Indian, black and white rhinos. Recently, however, video footage of the Sumatran rhinoceros in its native habitat and in breeding centers has been featured in several nature documentaries. Extensive footage can be found in an Asia Geographic documentary The Littlest Rhino. Natural History New Zealand showed footage of a Sumatran rhino, shot by freelance Indonesian-based cameraman Alain Compost, in the 2001 documentary The Forgotten Rhino, which featured mainly Javan and Indian rhinos.

Though they were documented by droppings and tracks, pictures of the Bornean rhinoceros were first taken and widely distributed by modern conservationists in April 2006, when camera traps photographed a healthy adult in the jungles of Sabah in Malaysian Borneo. On 24 April 2007, it was announced that cameras had captured the first-ever video footage of a wild Bornean rhino. The night-time footage showed the rhino eating, peering through jungle foliage, and sniffing the film equipment. The World Wildlife Fund, which took the video, has used it in efforts to convince local governments to turn the area into a rhino conservation zone. Monitoring has continued; 50 new cameras have been set up, and in February 2010, what appeared to be a pregnant rhino was filmed.

A number of folk tales about the Sumatran rhino were collected by colonial naturalists and hunters from the mid-19th century to the early 20th century. In Burma, the belief was once widespread that the Sumatran rhino ate fire. Tales described the fire-eating rhino following smoke to its source, especially campfires, and then attacking the camp. There was also a Burmese belief that the best time to hunt was every July, when the Sumatran rhinos would congregate beneath the full moon. In Malaya, it was said that the Sumatran rhino's horns was hollow and could be used as a sort of hose for breathing air and squirting water. In Malaya and Sumatra, it was once believed that the rhino shed its horns every year and buried them under the ground. In Borneo, the rhino was said to have a strange carnivorous practice: after defecating in a stream, it would turn around and eat fish that had been stupefied by the excrement.

title: Sumatran rhinoceros


text:
Talk:Perfect Strangers

Dates
Does anyone have the exact publication dates for Perfect Strangers (Deep Purple) in all the major territories? --/Mat 13:47, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Perfect Strangers


text:
Talk:Whaling

Article Lacks Basic Information
There are very long sections on the history of whaling in different countries, and on modern whaling. However, the most basic information is not presented at the beginning of the article in a manner that is clear and easy to find. The following questions need to be answered in the lead, and preferably before long sections on history in different countries: Why were wales hunted? What products did whales provide? and How were whales hunted? This article certainly does not meet the criteria for B-class status with these existing problems. Once this information is added to the lead or at least somewhere before the very long history section, the article then would certainly qualify as B-class. Dgf32 (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection
This page is being hit with allot of vandalism, suggest semi-protection.Hreinn (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

 * That is a great idea! --Swift (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * requested --Swift (talk) 06:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Scottish whaling
There seems to be no mention of the Scottish whaling fleet. I hope that the word 'English' is not being used incorrectly to refer to 'British'?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.147.172 (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

'Kayla' whale?
There are several mentions in this article of a 'Kayla' whale. But exactly what one is is never explained. There is no entry in Wikipedia for a 'Kayla' whale. I would appreciate if someone who knows about the term could add some brief explanatory information--perhaps in the first paragraph under 'History of Whaling' where it says: "Although prehistoric hunting and gathering is generally considered to have had low ecological impact, human activity related to early whaling communities in the Arctic may have altered freshwater ecology for the Kayla whales." Thanks. Dappawit (talk) 02:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

 * This is clearly vandalism, no one has reverted it but i dont know where it was inserted so i dont know what to replace it with.

67.84.178.0 (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Section: Ship collision, bycatch and illegal trade - incorrect statement
The Following quote appears to be inaccurate. It does not directly link organization that the quote is supposed to come from but rather another article on BBC page which appears to have it wrong

This is the quote

"WWF says that 90% of all whales being killed are from ship collision followed by-catch and then hunting"

This seems to have been taken out of context from the actual statement by the WWF

"In fact, ship strikes are to blame for 90 percent of Northern right whale deaths for which the cause is known (excluding deaths from natural factors such as old age). However, they are only one of the whale species directly threatened by shipping."

This is taken from the following link

http://www.panda.org/what_we_do/endangered_species/cetaceans/threats/shipping/

I have e-mailed WWF to confirm, but further checks on the NOAA seem to confirm that the 90% figure is only in relation to Northern Right Whales with and extremely low populaton count —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken wilsonii (talk • contribs) 23:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Whale intelligence
I fear the current article is a bit biased against whaling in that section. Baleen whales are stupid, about like cows or any other grazer. *Toothed* whales are somewhat intelligent, though it's only dolphins that are beyond the range of other animals used as food.

It's true that anti-whaling groups claim this, but it should be clearer that baleen whales are --not-- intelligent compared to other food animals.Vultur (talk) 04:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

 * except for that fact that they are. saying there as stupid as cows is prowhaling bias. its be reported many times by non whaling related groups about there intelligence. like one story of a whale saving seals from an toothed whale. and there dieat isnt important. heirbivore or meat eater, either way there brains are much larger than ours, even icomparrison to body size. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 23:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

 * I believe you meant to use "they're" and the possessive "their", not "there". Also, please cite sources for such (perhaps dubious) claims. Mysticetes and the sperm whale do indeed have larger brains, but their brain-to-body weight ratio is actually much smaller than ours. And baleen whales aren't particularly bright. I don't find blowing bubbles (e.g. humpbacks and bryde's) as a sign of great intelligence. OldBabyBlue (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

No, animals are not 'stupid' - that is a human trait. These animals can do things with sonar that are absolutely amazing, and have minds like no other on this planet. They are beautifully adapted carnivores, and even baleen whales have shown curiosity and a range of emotions.50.111.3.227 (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

 * What you think, indefinitely blocked sockpuppet of USER:Jonas Poole, doesn't matter - only what the Reliable Sources state.50.111.3.227 (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Still Poorly Written
This article is still a poor excuse for an encyclopedic entry on whaling. Whaling methods aren't even described in this article until the lengthy discussion on arguments for or against. The methods should be among the first things; that would be more in line with describing what whaling is before opening the attendant can of worms. Articles like this one give Wikipedia the lackluster reputation it currently has. The arrangement of the article itself is very conservation-biased, beginning in the introduction by stating that modern whaling began with the creation of the IWC. IMO, this itself is a POV that should be sourced (e.g., "it is commonly agreed that modern whaling began with the formation of the IWC" [source]).68.106.206.153 (talk) 05:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Pros section
The pros and cons sections seems lacking in the pros side of the argument. Besides economic pros, I'm sure there are more arguments for whaling non-endangered species, right? I know a lot of people killing whales/dolphins is not much different from killing cows. Where is this point of view? --121.80.175.129 (talk) 10:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Taste of whale meat
I've just reverted for the second time a mention that whale meat tastes like chicken. The second time this was added, it was accompanied by a link to a yahoo answers question. There are two main problems with the source. First off, the verifiability is questionable as I'm not aware of any editorial oversight or other means of quality control. Secondly, the source does not reach any conclusion with opinions offered including pork, beef and chicken, and certainly makes no note of the cause being its "nutritional background". --Swift (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

 * A long time (decades, at least) ago I read that Yankee whalers rarely ate whale meat, even if the alternatives were more hardtack, salt pork, and fish, because of the taste. Apparently, the high concentration of myoglobin to hemoglobin renders whale flesh "too strong" for American tastes. It's possible I still have that book somewhere. If I ever run across it again (I think I know where I saw it), I'll add a citation. Additionally, I seem to recall a reference to the taste of whale milk in one of Jacques Cousteau's books. The high fat content made it unpalatable. Oh, the random things we remember from our youths.... 165.91.64.122 (talk) 06:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)RKH

Moved content off to Whaling controversy
I've just moved the bulk of Whaling to Whaling controversy (I modeled the name on Stem cell controversy). This was discussed slightly in in 2008. Since then I've moved a bunch of redundant content off to History of whaling and country specific sections. This left the controversy section taking the bulk of this article. There are a number of articles that have their little bits of whaling controversies and we now finally have a little hub to link these to.

The cut is abrupt and considerable editing is needed. I'll do some of that now and in the coming days and weeks. Any help to copyedit, link and synchronise with others is of course appreciated. --Swift (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Overall, the rewrite seems well done. The introduction reads smoothly enough although it could use a few more citations, especially the final paragraph. And some of the body sections might need flushing out (ie, expansion) including the summaries of controversy, but I wouldnt push for it. PrBeacon (talk) 09:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Not quite sure that this is the right place to address this without creating a new section, but in the last section 'The arguments for and against whaling' where we have;
 * 'Key elements of the debate over whaling include sustainability, ownership, national sovereignty, cetacean intelligence, suffering during hunting, the value of lethal sampling to establish catch quotas, and the value of controlling whales' impact on fish stocks.
 * I am wondering if this can be even more NPOV by adding a few words, in brackets as suggestions. Its a long sentence and the last part can be read as subtlety POV
 * 'Key elements of the debate over whaling include sustainability; ownership [of stocks and populations of whales]; national sovereignty [vs. International Management and control];, cetacean intelligence, [the amount of] suffering during hunting, the value of lethal sampling to [whale management]; and [whether whale population have a negative impact on fish stock availability for human use]
 * I have suggested 'amount of' suffering as no hunter would say that all suffering can be avoided, but what is acceptable vs what is not is a point of debate.
 * Arguments for lethal takes are not just made for quota setting, but for other aspects of whale management
 * The issue of whether there is an actual impact of whales on fish stocks is in debate, so difficult to imply that this is an accepted impact. Hope thatt makes sense.
 * Please let me know what you think.Polarbearzombie (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

 * i object to this edit by Lfstevens. the summary of controversy is way too short. both sides are mentioned in two sentences in the lead, so the body should have much more. the fact that 'Whaling controversy' was split off doesn't mean this section should be eviscerated let alone eliminated. PrBeacon (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Okay apologies for not seeing the original edit of Lfstevens as noted by PrBeacon. I would have to agree with the PrBeacon that this has been edited too far. I think editing has accidentally potentially introduced elements of POV, and should either be reverted, or a more balanced section should be allowed here.Polarbearzombie (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Content forking
After the creation of the split to Whaling controversy yet another article has been created called Anti-whaling. I see this as a potential content fork and have proposed a merge. Polargeo (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

 * note, proposal was withdrawn. there was enough interest in keeping the new article. PrBeacon (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Modern Whaling (IWC consideration of quota proposals)
Can someone cite a reference for;

'Since 1992, the IWC's Scientific Committee has requested that it be allowed to give quota proposals for some whale stocks, but this has so far been refused by the Plenary Committee.'

My understanding of the working of the IWC Scientific Committee is that it cannot request anything of the Commission, except to ask what the Commission wishes it to work on. Polarbearzombie (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Further to my note above, the phrase 'The International Whaling Commission (IWC) was set up under the ICRW to decide hunting quotas and other relevant matters based on the findings of its Scientific Committee', could be argued to be not entirely correct.
 * The ICRW did not establish the Scientific Committee. Indeed the 'Scientific Committee' is not found in the ICRW. From what I can see the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, Article III(4), states ‘The Commission may set up, from among its own members and experts or advisers, such committees as it considers desirable to perform such functions as it may authorize.’
 * The Schedule does reference the Scientific Committee as adviser to the Commission; but the sovereignty of the Commission, representing elected governments over the non-elected Scientific Committee is a concept the Commission is often forthright in maintaining.Polarbearzombie (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Okay I think two years is long enough to wait for someone to provide the reference :-)(Polarbearzombie (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC))

 * I am proposing changing the line 'provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the commercial whaling and the orderly development of the whaling industry' to reflect what the actual text of the Convention says, which is -

'to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry'

 * There is no mention of commercial whaling in the original Convention text and therefore the way that this line is presented as if its a quote from the Convention is not a true reflection of the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polarbearzombie (talk • contribs) 16:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from Vanstone22, 26 January 2011
Remove, "America" Replace, "Japan" in the sentence related to citation 15 under Japan whaling. Should read, "...BBC, (Japan)...." because the structure of the sentence makes it seem as if America was the cause of the problem in the whaling. Either rewrite the sentence structure to, "Since Japan used the controversial front of Scientific research, America broke the agreement..."

Vanstone22 (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done:But the BBC article makes it clear that it was the U.S.'s fault. Japan objected to the ban (which would have meant it could continue whaling openly, like Norway and Iceland). The US threatened to stop Japanese fishing for other fish in US waters, so Japan withdrew its objection. Then Green groups and US fisherman in the US used the court system to reduce the quota for Japan in US waters, eventually reducing it to nothing. So, effectively, the US promised it would allow Japan to keep fishing as long as they dropped their whaling objection; Japan dropped the whaling objection, then the US still stopped the Japanese fishing. As a result, Japan decided to start whaling again (albeit under a different name). So I don't see how the sentence as currently written misrepresents the source. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Dipping
The word "dipping" appears in two headlines on the page, but nowhere is it explained what this is or how it relates to whaling. — 98.64.221.153 (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

 * That was vandalism; I've removed it now. Thanks.  Qwyrxian (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

This Page of Whaling on Wiki is shameful in its ethics
Folks, This page is shameful. It should be renames "Anti-Whaling Movements History". That is all this page is. It has hardly any information on the history or techniques of whaling which has existed for centuries. Or how during wars the whaling fleets were attacked. Or the great whaling ports. For example there is no culture section with Moby Dick. Come on folks, three small paragraph deals with the hunting of whales. The opposite of this section if the attempts by both gun control advocates or the NRA advocates taking over section on various small arms. It is shameful what one group with an agenda has done to this section. And it has nothing to do as to whether an editor believes whaling should be completely stopped and those that done. This page is in total violation of the ethics of Wikipedia! And you all know it. And the excuse that we have a higher morality for ignoring the ethics of Wiki does not wash!!!! Jack Jackehammond (talk) 07:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

 * How about the "excuse" that we have a whole article called History of whaling, with over 60K of information? That is prominently linked in the History section of this article?  It's regularly the case that when an article becomes too long, it's content is split across multiple articles; one part that is often split is a "History" section.  Does that solve your concerns.  Well, I guess it leaves the Moby Dick concern...but many WP editors think that "culture" sections aren't appropriate for most articles, as they often devolve into trivial lists. Still, I could see the logic for either adding one here, or making up some additional article.  We would need to be clear that we are talking about cultural artifacts (books, songs, dances, etc.) in which whaling is mentioned, rather than the cultural implications of whaling or the overall role that whaling plays in various cultures. On that issue, I'd request the input of other editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

 * What is needed then is a SEE ALSO section before the notes with "The History of Whaling" and other sections. But the content of this section does not still reflect the subject.  It is not about "Whaling" in general but the "anti-Whaling Movement".  That is why they have all this content on this page.  They know anyone looking up whaling (for example the American Civil War and the almost total destruction of the whaling fleet) are going to enter "Whaling".  The editors of this page have to make a decision: ie do we wish to present the general knowledge of whaling or educate those that are interested in whaling as to why is it wrong to continue any hunting of whales.  And if you pick the 2nd option there will be other agenda groups demanding the use of general subject pages for their agenda. And btw, I was going to post some information about a whale hunting tactic used in the 1930s off the coast of S. Africa that was appalling.  And to the person who has no views one way or another they would have probably swung towards against the hunting of whales.  That is the way to push an agenda.  Present all the facts, from both sides, and if you facts are more right than the other side, that is all you need.  Not use facts like splashing on perfume with a bucket.  Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 05:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Map of whaling areas
A map of current and historical whaling areas would be very helpful in understanding the economics and history. -- Beland (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Changed the map tag to reflect a global map or maps are needed as part of diffusion of Category:Wikipedia_requested_maps. If a more specific map is needed the template Template:Map_requested_from can be used instead. Mheart  ( talk ) 19:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Well, that map would include a good chunk of the ocean, particularly in the modern era (everything south of 40 S, a hundred mile radius on both sides of the North Pacific, great swathes of the tropics and North Atlantic, etc.). I know one exists for American open-boat whaling in the late 19th century, which includes more restricted areas. It should be free use. SaberToothedWhale (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Content removed
I removed the part about the faroese tourism making the grindadráp a family holiday event. Tourism on the islands is negliable, and the grindadr+ap has nothing in common with a family day out! If you want to compare it to something, then compare it to a hunting trip where the hunter has every respect for the prey, and makes every effort of having the kill go as swiftly as possibly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.172.90.22 (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

"Whaling is immoral"
In what sense is whaling immoral? Portillo (talk) 02:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

 * It's covered on Whaling controversy. Not saying I agree, just that it's a verified position of animal rights activists. Maybe we should clarify that a bit in this article with a citation? Qwyrxian (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

 * Good idea. Thanks for your reply. Portillo (talk) 02:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Links
>> Japan politicians defiant despite whaling banLihaas (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Nothing on whaling methods?
Surely an article on whaling should at least mention historical and modern whaling techniques with a description of the equipment used to kill and process them? Either that or at least fork to a separate article that does so in more detail or link to existing relevant articles. Types of harpoon, use of explosives, cyanide and other poisons, on-shore versus off-shore processing, etc. The words "harpoon" and "flensing" are not even in the article. 124.169.92.8 (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Seems covered in Harpoon and [Flensing]]. I'll put in a See also section. - Rod57 (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Modern whaling section name needs clarification
Could mean 'with harpoon guns since 1863' or 'since IWC moratorium 1986' - Content seems to be the later so have extended section name. - Rod57 (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

How many caught each year
Looking at this and the History of whaling I couldn't find any idea of roughly how many whales were caught each decade say since 1800 let alone of what species. A summary in the History section here would be useful context ? - Rod57 (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

 * Here is Japans catch since 1985 - Rod57 (talk) 23:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

 * Whale catch around/by Iceland by species - Rod57 (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality of Page
I have nominated this page to have its neutrality checked because several good faith edits designed to improve the neutrality and accuracy of the page were reverted and called "Vandal toll" edits. The specific edits included the following:
 * 1) Addition of scientific research as a stated reason for whaling;
 * 2) Removal/Movement of essentially direct quotes from interested parties (Eg. pro/anti-whaling groups) sourced and presented as fact;
 * 3) Addition of a section devoted to criticism of Japanese Whaling Program in-order to conform to structure and design of similar Wikipedia pages;
 * 4) Movement of content throughout article related to criticism of Japanese Whaling Program to new section.

The previous good faith edits should not have been blindly reverted and labeled as vandal troll(sp) edits, especially when the edits were improving the neutrality of the page and addressing issues with sources. Rather than reverting good faith edits to preserve the status quo on the page, it would be more beneficial to improve the content and quality of the page, including its neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsthetruthforsure (talk • contribs)  17:32, 6 November 2015

 * I think the content was better without the changes. Most, if not all of the changes appear to violate WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

 * Disagreeing with what sources say, or that the sources take a stance against a subject, does not make the edits a violation of a Neutral Point of View - the article on Hitler, for instance, is very negative on the subject, but is well-sourced and perfectly fine. Since we have another article that goes into detail now with the history of anti-whaling activism, I'm going to remove this tag, as the material appears to reside there now.50.111.3.227 (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): S7guan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2018 and 13 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chaznel747.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Greenland
I suggest an update on the Greenlandic mean catch according to the most recent available data. On average for the last 5 years, Greenlanders have hunted 167 baleen (large) whales, mostly minke whales, as well as 528 narwhals, 200 belugas, 308 pilot whales and 2,493 porpoises. These numbers are calculations from the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission catch database (available here). Thanks! MartinNAMMCO (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Native Americans Stripping Their Prey at Neah Bay – 1910
Is prey the right word to use here? It seems like something to describe a predator animal's behaviour rather than humans doing something. 70.64.101.91 (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Whaling