Talk:Narwhal

Length of females contradiction

"Total length in both sexes, excluding the tusk of the male, can range from 3.95 to 5.5 m (13 to 18 ft). Males, at an average length of 4.1 m (13.5 ft), are slightly larger than females, with an average length of 3.5 m (11.5 ft)."

So the length of females can range from 3.95 to 5.5 m (13 to 18 ft), but their average length is 3.5 m (11.5 ft), out of the range, which is mathematically impossible. Something should be fixed. 213.197.78.255 (talk) 11:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of the tusk

I wanted to reformat the paragraph that discusses possible uses of the tusk by listing the theories as bullet points. This edit was quickly reverted. I wanted to draw attention to the phrase "The purpose of the narwhal tusk is a topic of constant debate." and show some of these theories (that may or may not be mutually exclusive) in a more reader-friendly format. Zachs81 (talk) 06:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Please bring your ideas to the FAC I'll be nominating shortly. 20 upper (talk) 06:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

This article seems to be completely controlled by one user

If you look at the edit history, one user is making all the edits. This can be cross-referenced with the pad lock symbol in the upper corner of the article, letting you know the article is being controlled by specific power-users. It is completely unacceptable and against the spirit of Wikipedia. 203.219.65.139 (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense. One particular editor has taken on the job of bringing the article to (I assume) GA or FA status, starting January of this year. The padlock shows that the article is locked for editing by editors who are not WP:AUTOCONFIRMED, to prevent vandalism - a trivial barrier to surmount. Anyone with a minimum of a track record can help edit the text. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

NY Times: Why Do Whales Go Through Menopause?

@Wolverine XI I'm sorry the FAC didn't go as well as you hoped. If you decide to make another attempt, I would suggest putting it back on WP:PR and please ping me when you do and I'll be happy to give you whatever help I can.

I saw this article in today's NY Times. Thought you might find it interesting, and possibly useful to add to the article. Please note that's a time-limited URL to bypass the NY Times paywall; it's good for 30 days. RoySmith (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Thank you. I began a peer review just two weeks ago. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 08:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

reference to Jules Verne's novel 'Twenty Thousand...' missing

In the Wikipedia article on Jules Verne's novel 'Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Seas', it is mentioned that the narwhal plays a role in the plot, but in this article on the narwhal, no ping-back to that other article is made. It seems to me that such a ping-back ought to be made. Kontribuanto (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

So what Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Seas says in the plot section is "mysterious sea monster, which, it is later suggested, might be a gigantic narwhal." Thus the narwhal is not really an important part of the plot and it's not sourced. Too many Wikipedia articles include "In popular culture" sections that are noting more than trivia. I would oppose adding this. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how that would help the article as a whole. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 04:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Copy editing notes

I, as a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, edited this article as requested by Wolverine XI. I took these notes while editing. I take these notes when an edit is too complicated for a copy edit, or to avoid leaving an inline maintenance tag. Of course, they just represent my opinion.

• genital slit
  • not really a problem with this article, but this redirect isn't great
• Narwhals from Canada and West Greenland winter regularly visit the pack ice of the Davis Strait and Baffin Bay along the continental slope with less than 5% open water and high densities of Greenland halibut.
  • This sentence is difficult to understand and needs to be rephrased. I couldn't figure it out by checking the source.
• Longevity and mortality factors
  • add intro sentence on entrapment events
• This suggests later departure dates from summering grounds. Wind and currents move sea ice from adjacent locations to Greenland, leading to fluctuations in concentration. Due to their tendency of returning to the same areas, changes in weather and ice conditions are not always associated with narwhal movement toward open water. It is currently unclear to what extent sea ice changes pose a danger to narwhals.
  • the relevance and tense of this is unclear
• However the net income, after subtracting costs in time and equipment, was a loss of CA$7 (US$6.80) per person.
  • per person? previous sentences said per narwhal
    • source says $7 per capita on p.11. Since the sentence refers to time & equipment, which are per person, I guess the authors thought it makes sense to give net value per person. I see @Wolverine XI: changed it without comment. I propose changing it back.Kim9988 (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Kim9988: Restored? Happy now? Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 16:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Satellite data collected from these areas shows the amount of sea ice has been markedly reduced from what it was previously.
  • MOS:DATED
• Threats
  • the climate change paragraph (beginning with Narwhals are one of the most vulnerable) in this section is clunky and needs revision
• In 2002, hunters in Siorapaluk experienced an increase in the number of caught narwhals, but this increase did not seem to be linked to enhanced endeavour, implying that climate change may be making the narwhal more vulnerable to harvesting.
  • clarify "endeavour"; sentence is overall confusing
• While it is generally illegal to hunt narwhals, Inuit people are permitted to do so.
  • jurisdiction?
• Historical journalist Hadley Meares stated, "The trade strengthened during the Middle Ages, when the unicorn became a symbol of Christ, and therefore an almost holy animal."
  • a copy edit isn't a source review/cleanup but this is very weak. see also WP:RSPHISTORY. I recommend removing it unless a reliable source is found
    • Removed
• Across Europe, narwhal tusks were given as state gifts to kings and queens. There was also a growing demand for the supposed powers of unicorn horns.
  • when?
    • Fixed
• The tusk has been used for therapeutic purposes, including cleansing polluted water and treating rubella, measles, fevers, and pain.
  • again, not a source review, but a possible WP:MEDRS area
    • These are just beliefs, and by no means is this phrasing meant for medicine.
• The rise of science towards the end of the 17th century led to a decreased belief in magic and alchemy. After it was determined that narwhal tusks were not effective antidotes, the practice of using them for this purpose was subsequently abandoned.
  • again, WP:RSPHISTORY
    • Fixed
• and a regulated subsistence hunt continues.
  • this isn't really covered in the main text (continued subsistence hunt)
    • It is; see the threats section.

Let me know if you have any issues or questions. Thanks, Wracking ^talk! 04:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Comments on the lead, as requested

• "cases of interbreeding between the two species has been recorded." Plural "cases", so "has" → 'have'.
  • Done
• "Carl Linnaeus scientifically described the species". Just checking that he described it, as well as classifying it. (In the main article, is there not a secondary source for this?)
  • It's a custom for species articles to use primary sources in the Taxonomy/scientific discovery section
• "Narwhals typically visit Baffin Bay between June and September. After this period, they move to the Davis Straights". Is it really true that all narwhals do this?
  • Done
• Not the lead, but why the scare quotes in "Communication"?
  • Done
• Optional: "the species is listed as least concern by" → 'the species is listed as being of least concern by'.
  • Done
• The middle collection reads a little as a recitation of a set of facts rather than as smooth prose, but would need completely rewriting to resolve. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Arctogadus glacialis, Boreogadus saida, Greenland halibut,— two binomials, one common name, and you refer to "Arctic cod" in Tusk, and "Arctic cod (Boreogadus saida) in diet, needs consistency

• Is there any courtship behaviour? You just have "adults mate"

• you don't mention parasites, like lice and nematodes, see this or diseases see this, which specifically mentions narwhal for some diseases

• I'll have another look tomorrow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Completed all so far. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 19:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I made this edit for three apparent typos Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Dive depth

@Wolverine XI: I have reinstated the note on the deepest recorded dive depth [1]. I can't see a reason why that was removed (and can't even easily find the diff where that was done among the hundreds of edits you have made since). The datum is well sourced and shown as both the raw data (Laidre) and in tabulation as deepest recorded for the species in a literature review (Randall). It also is clearly a fact of interest in this particular paragraph. What would be the objection? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Elmidae: I'm in the process of taking this article to FA status, and your additions are not helpful. I deleted that sentence because it disrupts the flow, and confuses the reader. I would also emphasize that most sources state that they dive to a depth of 1500 meters; the highest recorded dive depth is unimportant. I will be removing it; please refrain from inserting it. Listen, the point here is to improve the article quality to featured standards so understand where I'm coming from. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 09:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Wow, okay... you must be kidding. I frankly did not expect this type of flabbergasting answer. I'm going to go into bold type here. Working to improve an article to featured does not give you ownership, special authority, or any kind of extra weight in determining what goes into the text. You are literally stating "I own this article now and I don't like anyone else editing it." And your only objection to the addition of that germane, well-sourced fact is that it "disrupts the flow"? What the hell??? I defended you above (Talk:Narwhal#This_article_seems_to_be_completely_controlled_by_one_user) but it seems that the IP had you bang to rights.

I am now going to be digging my heels in. Please explain, in detail, what makes the following addition unsuitable for inclusion: The greatest dive depth recorded is 2,370 m (7,780 ft). I am also requesting input from other editors who have worked on the article in the recent past: @Jpgordon, Vanamonde93, HGModernism, Chiswick Chap, Gog the Mild, and Wracking:. Now excuse me while I pick my jaw off the floor. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, possibly the tone of the discussion is a bit wrong, but if it is true that the sources largely agree on a much shallower depth, then a bold statement to the contrary may not be correct: it does rather depend on the dates of the sources, and whether the deepest claim is well-supported by the evidence, e.g. the technique of measurement, steps taken to ensure calibration of instruments, repeated readings, and so forth. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Nah, the data for mean depth and max depth are from the exact same source - the Laidre paper (here, Table 2). The only thing the 2nd ref (Randall) adds is to explicitly tabulate it as deepest recorded for the species.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Well then, the mention should be unexceptionable, FAC or not; it certainly seems a fact worth mentioning. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Working on an FAC does not confer permission for WP:OWN, and that's precisely what Wolverine is doing. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 13:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not necessarily saying it applies, but one of the criterion a candidate at FAC has to meet is "stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day". Gog the Mild (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Given that Wolverine has made hundreds of edits to the article over the last few days, but apparently can't abide anyone else making a single one - yeah, I would suggest that this is not an applicable observation. Nor does it seem sensible to imply that an editor should engage in ownership behaviour in order to make an article "stable". That's not how this railway is run. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

But I may be misunderstanding what you are saying here. Can you clarify? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'll start by saying that I don't own this article. The issue is that we already have information on dive depth, so the relevant facts are already covered. It also ruins the flow, as the important connections are not made. If you wish to press further, then start a RFC. I do not have internet connection at the moment (currently being hotspotted), so it may be some time before I can get to this. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 18:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

No RFC is necessary; discussion is happening here on the talk page, and Elmidae may well be able to gain consensus for their position. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 00:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Three bad arguments. One, where is the information on max dive depth "covered already"? Two, if you honestly believe that relevant facts may be omitted for "better flow", you have a very worrisome approach to shaping an article. Content first, form second. This is an encyclopedic article, not a blog post. Third, if you feel unable to integrate six words on a closely related fact into a paragraph without destroying its entire structure, I will happily do it for you - I have been writing papers on animal physiology for long enough. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

When in their wintering waters, narwhals make some of the deepest dives recorded for cetaceans, diving to at least 800 m (2,620 ft) over 15 times per day, with many dives reaching 1,500 m (4,920 ft). -- Dive depth already covered. Also, I don't see max. dive depth for other cetaceans, so I'm not sure why we should mention it here. This article is as comprehensive as it can be. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 06:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• I am also without regular internet access at present, so I cannot engage deeply here. Wolverine, as others have said, when another editor makes changes in good faith, you need to engage with them substantively; your aspirations of taking this to FAC aren't relevant. Elmidae in particular has long experience with biology articles. Indeed it seems to me that this addition would make the article more comprehensive; details of placement can be worked out via discussion to avoid any disruption to the text. Given the availability of this information, as a reviewer I would request its inclusion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• All right, so where we at? It looks to me as if among those commenting, there is a clear consensus for adding the information. Reviewing the current sentence structure, I am also once more struck by the sheer weirdness of insisting that the addition is not relevant, would ruin the flow, or would be confusing. There is not even any integration required. Just drop it in like so:

"When in their wintering waters, narwhals make some of the deepest dives recorded for cetaceans, diving to at least 800 m (2,620 ft) over 15 times per day, with many dives reaching 1,500 m (4,920 ft).[51][52] The greatest dive depth recorded is 2,370 m (7,780 ft). Dives to these depths last around 25 minutes."

Done, dusted. - If I actually have to call an RfC to break through this pointless display of unconstructive stonewalling, I am going to be less than civil about it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Very well. Since Wolverine XI appears to have chosen to just ignore this while continuing to busily edit the article, I am now implementing the (at least) 3:1 consensus expressed above, using the suggested wording. Feel free to reformulate or reposition, but Wolverine, please be aware that simply removing the item again at this point would be pretty blatant ownership behavior. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Open tooth sockets

I know what tooth sockets are, but what are "open" tooth sockets? Google refers me to dry sockets, which is surely not relevant. The reference mentions open sockets but does not say anything about what they are or how they are relevant.

Also what does "shed in the palate" mean? (I know what the palate is, it is the "shed" part that is unclear).· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 12:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

General information: diet

At the top of the article it lists what narwhal eat but the list is not consistent with the Diet section below. For example, in the top section it lists cuttlefish but the cuttlefish range does not overlap with the narwhal range. Appropriately, cuttlefish are not listed in the Diet section. (I am a newbie and don't know how to fix this.) Pokaje (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Youtube video discussing this page

Hello,

Wikipedians, this page has become the subject of a youtube video with a lot of views. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0L-3FfkXfM&t=186s Guylaen (talk) 04:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Noted... Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 19:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

For what it is worth, while your original decision to incorrectly revert an edit and send a mildly patronising message to the other editor without checking whether the claim was substantiated is lightly criticised, you are also praised for eventually making the change, as well as for your dedication to improving the page. SCIAG (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

It shows some very strange behavior from @Wolverine XI, such as reverting an edit because the information is well sourced and then subsequently reinstating the content of that edit. It does not seem that this user is assuming good faith of other editors. 2600:1017:B8BA:E4C9:C8C4:13CB:2B5F:80E7 (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what edits you are referring to, and I haven't seen the video, but it is reasonably common for someone to revert an edit but then realize their initial judgment was incorrect so they subsequently restore the edit. Johnuniq (talk) 05:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand, but it seems that edits are reverted outright and only when this users mind changes does the article actually change. It seems that the content of this article represents their opinion and not the opinion of RS’s 2600:1017:B8BA:E4C9:2C8D:A39:E551:DEF0 (talk) 04:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey IP, remember that time you were saying that thing I didn't care about? Yeah, that was your comment up there. Now go find someone else to bother. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 20:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I really hope someone as egotistical as you is no longer allowed to edit a site meant for collaboration as if it were your own. 2A02:C7C:C14:B500:24AB:AD17:1BFB:C938 (talk) 12:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

If that is not a personal attack, I don't know what is. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 12:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

your previous reply to the IP user is a good example of a personal attack if you need further context — for someone who was recently unblocked and on a final warning before being permanently banned (although you have changed your name and archived your talk page to hide this) I’m surprised that you would continue to respond in such a hostile manner. 86.4.238.18 (talk) 09:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Well you've ironically made that clear. @Wolverine XI you appear to be monopolizing the content on this page and it's disheartening. Honestly behavior like this is what stopped me from continuing to donate to WP. This behavior is abhorrent. 160.3.113.122 (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I came here because of that video. The creator blends WikiPedia with Quora. Everybody who is familiar with Quora knows it is about the worst source of information on the Web. The video does not make this clear.

Simon de Danser (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

It seemed like the video only brought up Quora as it was one of the only places the unsubstantiated claim could be found. 208.125.12.4 (talk) 18:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The video doesn't blend Wikipedia with Quora. The Quora answer is simply shown as one of the only places on the internet the fact is stated. Implying that the video is wrong because of this and the supposed "blending" of the two is rather bad faith. Anyone who watches the video doesn't really need it made clear that Wikipedia and Quora are entirely separate. 2A02:C7C:C14:B500:24AB:AD17:1BFB:C938 (talk) 12:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)