Talk:Whaling/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Introductory paragraph

I have amended the introductory paragraph where it said "The potential of the extermination of species by whaling" as it implies that the extinction of species is a possible future event. In fact whale species extinction is an existing historical fact as is the endangered status of certain of the great whales. Similary while it may be semantically correct to say there is no consensus in the sense of unanimous agreement or even very large majority agreement, the current situation is clearly that commercial whaling is banned by the IWC. A statement that there is no consensus while semantically correct is too vague.dinghy 21:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

In reponse to SammyThe Seal: the reference is the United Nations web site as was clear in the reference in the text that you reverted: http://www.un.org/works/environment/animalplanet/whale.html The following are direct quotes from that page:
"At the height of the whaling industry, one species after another was killed off."
"Even with these conservation efforts, seven of the 13 great whales remain endangered as new threats contribute to their plight."
I will revert the introduction to my edit as these and the fact that the IWC has a moratorium on commercial facts are the top level current facts of whaling today
dinghy 23:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Phanly,

Read the whaling article - Look at the table - which species are extinct? None ... reverted - and will continue to revert - please check your facts, rather rely on your interpretation of "one" article ..SammytheSeal 01:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Addition - the list of extinct species you linked to has zero to do with whaling - or do you disagree? SammytheSeal 01:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Sammy, I relied on a specific statement on UN web page re extinction of whales. I did not interpret it, but I accept that it appears to be incorrect. Thanks. As to the sentence that there is no consensus, I accept that it is correct in the sense that the margin of majority for the decision to ban commercial whaling is small,believe it serves to obfuscate that there is in fact a ban on commercial whaling by the IWC. I will add that part as an addition to the existing sentence. dinghy 00:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Phanly, I modified the intro to reflect the ST Kitts and Nevis declaration from the 2006 IWC meeting - it´s a slim one vote majority ..SammytheSeal 23:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Phanly - Amended Intro

Hi Phanly,

Regarding " The past extinction of many whale species and the current endangered status of seven of the 13 great whales [1] has set up a heated debate over the value of whaling in modern society. At present, commercial whaling is banned by the IWC, but this ban is opposed by a significant minority of the members. "

Please elaborate on this " past extinction of many whale species " - Which species? Aside from the possible extinction of the Bajii .. that´s it - Atlantic Grey whales are thought to be extinct but grey whales as a species are doing just fine - if you mean sub-species or local populations then say so and provide cites and references.

The IWC shenanigans and the associated politics is already well covered - As for the "significant minority" comment, well, the minority was the majority at the last IWC meeting resulting in the ST. Kitts and Nevis declaration.... It´s fine and well if you personally are anti whaling - but the article should be NPOV - and factual... regards SammytheSeal 22:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Conservation status

Anybody feel up to changing the IUCN classifications table? ( I don´t trust myself to fiddle with the table )The IUCN has downlisted a number of Marine mammals in January [2] SammytheSeal 23:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems like the HNA have announced prematurely - the IUCN still has not announced officially - When it does, there will be a fair amount of editing to do in related articles ( endangered mammals and so forth )SammytheSeal 07:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Whale Intelligence

Hello, yesterday, I added two recent references on the topic of whale intelligence, while they by no means form a consensus, as they are recent and from reliable scientific sources, I thought they might add value to the page.Akhampton 10:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I radically edited this section, leaving these sources, cutting out repetition, and removing un-sourced statements that referred to specific experiments. There is a page on whale intelligence, so this section should just be about intelligence as it applied to eating animals, and this section should be short. I hope everybody likes it, I'd love if someone could add more sources or further neaten up the grammar and organization. Enuja 03:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest adding a reference for the claim about pigs, otherwise that section smells of POV to me. Some if your edits seem a bit weasaly and origonal research to me as well, for instance this section:

"It is important to discriminate between 'intelligence' and other factors that may affect the ability of the animal to experience pain and suffering, such as the possession of the complex central nervous system all mammals possess."

Without references, how is this not origonal research?

I wasnt going to revert your edits, but with some thought I have decided to. The previous version is not nessisarily better, but is less POV I think. Well, no, they both stink really as I look at them more. I am still reverting your edit for now though and would like to see some references and discussion here. Russeasby 04:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I want references, too! However, I did not add any information at all. That sentence you mention; it was already there, only with an additional statement that I know to be incorrect (it implied that some mammals do not have complex nervous systems). I only removed information and repetition. How can removing repetition be bad because it isn't cited? I also think it would be worthless to try to add citations to messy and repetitive text. I've been trying to attribute opinions to one side or the other, so we've got uncited instead of uncited and POV language. One of my basic ideas is that the more concise and short something is, the easier it is to fix. Please, please, fix any POV problems, and add citations to the shorter version! Please don't revert just because my version isn't perfect; I suspect that it looked worse to you because it's easier to read the whole thing. Shorter makes the facts (cited or not, true or false) stand out, and that's a good thing.Enuja 04:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm really glad you agreed that my edit was constructive, if not perfect. Would you mind reverting that section (and that section only, as I did the same thing to "economic arguments") to my version, or your version of my version, so it doesn't look like we are edit warring? Enuja 06:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, since Russeaby didn't reverse his revert in over a week, I went ahead cleaned up the section again. I used almost exactly the same text, although I read the sources and changed the text to better reflect source #33. I'm not a big fan of source #34; the article appears to be an anti-whaling piece which might or might not be accurately reflecting a peer-reviewed scientific article. I can't tell because the original article isn't linked or cited.Enuja 06:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Fishing

Hello, yesterday I added a reference to a recent article from the BBC regarding the decline in fish stocks. As it provides several reasons for the dramtic decline in fish stocks, such as pollution and improved fishing techniques, I thought that it would be an appropriate addition to that discussion.Akhampton 10:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Pengo revert

I reverted " The primary reason now given for whaling, especially by Japan, is that it is required as part of a cetacean research program. "

Japan is the only country whaling under SC permit - all others are either commercial hunts or indigenous hunts. Iceland recently ended their SC permit hunting and went over to a purely commercial hunt. The statement is patently false and misleading SammytheSeal 14:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Economic Argument

I just did the same thing to this sub-section as I did to the Whale Intelligence subsection. I added absolutely no information. I simply tried to make it more concise, and to clearly be neutral by attributing arguments to one group or another, although, without any sources, I couldn't attribute arguments to particular people. Yes, this section needs sources. I removed the general "clean-up" tag and replaced it with a "sources needed" tag. I think it will be much easier to improve this shorter version, so I urge everyone to mercilessly edit the new version instead of reverting to an older version. I did remove quotes; it appears to me that the attribution of those quotes had been turned to a hidden note of a dead webpage, and the LA times doesn't have the article any more. Also, the presence of long quotes didn't seem very productive in this section. Enuja 05:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

IUCN Table

I've been trying to clean up this article. As I scroll around on the page, this table is really big and awkward and in the way. So I fiddled around a bit; what do you all think of these versions?

If you want the Data Deficient column, here [3] is the version with all of the information. I simply removed the rows for Species, Subspecies and Subpopulation/Stock, and put them into the columns so that the data would stack and not have empty spaces in middle of the table. I also made the Lower Risk (Conservation Dependent) column wider (by the messy expedient of an underscore between Conservation_Dependent; is there a better way of making columns wider?) to fit its data in less vertical space.

Here [4] is the above version minus the 'Data Deficient column and reshuffling Subpopulation/Stock into Subpopulation or Stock, making it fit better. I prefer this version. What do you all think? Married to empty space? Need straight lines? Think this is easier to read? Enuja 07:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No reactions to my suggestion, so I subbed in the version minus the "Data Deficient" column. Enuja 01:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Eek! The subpopulation/stock bit was messed up. I fixed it. I'm pretty sure the table now how has exactly the same content it used to, but it takes up less space. That was my aim. Enuja 02:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up the table (I didn't mean for it to get so big). Instead of the underscore (_) you can use a non-breaking space by inserting the code   (I've fixed it on the article now) —Pengo 02:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that inclusion or exclusion of subspecies make much difference. However, I do believe that we must specify each source for each species. So I went back and restored the old edit, which had much better source attribution. I do not object to inlusion of sub species provided IUCN source are specified.

History & Modern & Country entries

The United States and Japan have entries in both the History of Whaling and in the Modern Whaling section. To reduce redundancy, I propose we keeping the main section of history of whaling, have a Whaling in Various Countries section with existing countries, and then have a Bycatch and Illegal Trade (or maybe Current International Status including bycatch and illegal trade). What do you all think? Is it worth for redundancy reduction to kill the Modern Whaling section and parse its sections out? Enuja 08:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Parts of this article are definitely overlapping and contradictory with the History of whaling article, and it would be nice to see the two combined.Myrddin y dewydd 03:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

General References Section

I have not noticed a section like this in other articles, and the one existing in this article is overflowing. For instance, what would be the difference between the websites listed under "general references" and those under "external links" wouldn't external links also "general references" anyways? I propose doing away with the entire general references section. Some things in it could be moved to "See Also" and others to "external links". Though I hope in a change such as this its all seriously trimmed down. I welcome comments here on this before I start digging in to it myself. Russeasby 03:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that "General References" is supposed to be used for articles that aren't cited line by line, to tell the reader where the information came from. As the General References section stands now, it isn't very useful, but I'd be a little hesitant about taking it out in one fell swoop. It might still have some really good general references from which this article was built that could be used to provide citations for the many unsourced statements. I suggest you get rid of it, but slowly and only after you check that each source wouldn't be useful to cite in the article. I know the whole thing will still hang out in the history, but I'm an optimist who thinks that new editors might be able to use those references to improve the article. Enuja 03:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we agree here pretty much. For instance any "websites" listed in general reference which are good general references I think should be move to external links, I am not advocating deleting the section without thought by any means. Likewise non websites could easily be listed in "see also" in some cases, like Moby Dick the novel could be listed as a see also via a wikilink to the article on the novel. On the same note, the external links section is also excessive. We cant have a link to every pro and anti whaling website out there. Time needs to be taken to go through these listed sites and be sure the ones with the best information are listed (pro and anti). I welcome help in doing this! Russeasby 03:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree we agree, and I might help later, but I'm not going to work on it right now! Enuja 04:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Intelligence Section

As it stands, it says nothing about the relevance of intelligence to whaling. Although admittedly unsourced and not all that well written, the previous version at least did address the idea of intelligence as a reason not to eat organisms. Russeasby, you removed it because the pig stuff wasn't sourced and you were skeptical. Personally, I don't know of any good sources on pig intelligence, but I have heard (as a child at petting zoos, in conversation with people who know pigs personally) that they are extraordinarily intelligent, so I'm not personally skeptical. However, I suggest that you return all of the not-pig-intelligence stuff to that section, and continue to leave out the two sentences on pig intelligence. The two linked sections don't address the morality of whale-killing, and that's exactly what a section in this part of this article should be about. Enuja 03:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I do agree in many ways. I have heard as well much of my life of the intelligence of pigs, and I am sure a quick google search could give many references regarding their intelligence. But that is not where my objection to this section is. My objection is to the argument to the relative intelligence of pigs vs whales and the use of this argument to support whaling related claims. Without citations this easily falls into orthogonal research. I have no doubts about whale intelligence, or pig intelligence for that matter, but their relation in the whaling debate should be able to be referenced to be included here. But even the non pig comments aside, there are still issues, such as:

"Some pro-whaling advocates also question the use of intelligence to determine the ethical acceptability of killing an organism. They argue that a logical extension of this belief would be that within a species, individuals who are more intelligent have more right to life, and that this would be entirely immoral in any human society."

What pro whaling advocates are arguing this point? A comment like "this would be entirely immoral in any human society" is not only origonal research but stinks of weasel words as well I think. If pro whaling sites can be referenced supporting such things, I am happy to keep it, especially useful would be direct quotes included in the article suggesting things like this. But as it stands none of this exists and thus the entire section is unencylopedic. I know you have spend a lot of time on these articles, rewriting them for the better, if you want to read some of what I have removed I will not object, but will offer my input on what I think is appropriate or not, I am happy to discuss. I will make clear here now that I am not personally pro whaling, but I seriously want to see this article remain neutral, whaling is a seriously controversial topic thus references here are more important then most other articles. Russeasby 04:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

We have a disagreement about process, I think. (Other readers, see the end of Talk:Whaling/Archive2) I think a poor treatment of a subject is more likely to be improved than no treatment of a subject is. I think it's easier to find citations than to come up with the subjects that need to be covered; and I think the section had a good start on the subjects that need to be covered

I also have a problem with your use of the phrase "original research." If I, personally, put a mirror in front of a pig and in front of a whale, with and without new items on the animal's body, and judged the animal's response, and came up with a conclusion about the relative self-awareness of pigs and whales, and reported it in this article, then THAT would be original research. As it is, nothing in this article is original research; it is simply unattributed or unverified. However, I maintain that this information is verifiable and attributable, and therefore should be in this encyclopedia.

I actually think that direct quotes are usually a bad idea; paraphrasing and citing sources is much, much better. We don't care how pro- and anti-whaling groups say their ideas, we care what their ideas are.Enuja 04:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead Section

I shortened the lead section. I'm not happy with the way it flows at the moment (it doesn't) but I think I preserved all of the important information while making it easier to read. I removed the history of why people whale (oil and food to "protein," which is, of course, food) as adequately covered in the article and not important to the subject as a whole. I removed two of three sources for the same fact, as the IUCN list is the place to go for endangered species count. Enuja 06:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: I keep shortening the article, and the readable prose of the article is 31 kilobytes long. So, by the article size guidelines alone, this article probably isn't too long. I still haven't read it all, though.  :-) Enuja 06:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

In lead section, it says whaling has been around since 6000 BC, and in history of whaling it says since 7000 BC. Does anyone know which is correct? Also, should BC become BCE after changes? Joel.labes 07:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The history of why people whale is an ESSENTIAL aspect of this topic and it should be contained within the lead. Wikipedia is a general audience encyclopedia. Someone with no previous knowledge of whaling should be able to figure out what it is, why it's done, and how it's done from the lead section. While there are lots of important issues regarding conservation and endangered species, the basics of whaling still need to be covered. Dgf32 (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Safety of eating whale meat

This section was very misleading as it only discussed the presence of trace amounts of contaminants and not its nutritional properties, in other words: Is it healthy or unhealthy to have whale meat in your diet? I added a small paragraph, but am not too satisfied with it. One problem I had was to find a reliable factual source and I think it is possible to do better. jax (talk) 05:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Value for Research section

A few comments about the section quoted below

Lethal sampling is required to obtain age information, which can be reliably gathered by looking at the ear plug in the head of the dead animal. However, all other information can be gathered through non-lethal means. Dietary information can be gathered from analysis of whale faeces. Gender, reproductive status, and population profiles can be gathered from non-lethal biopsies. Within the IWC, age data is not needed to establish a catch limit for whaling, which is the stated goal of the Japanese research[28] Questionable research includes a paper named Fertilizability of ovine, bovine, and minke whales spermatazoa intracytoplasmically injected into bovine oocytes, a paper which studies the taking of whale genetic material and putting it into cows.[28]

The collection of whale faces for analysis may work fine for small numbers of animals and in certain areas - however, it´s not widely used worldwide for logistical and area / animal specific reasons. I´d like to see a citation for " Within the IWC, age data is not needed to establish a catch limit for whaling " Age data is highly relevant in population dynamics so I´m kinda wondering where that gem comes from. Also note two of the reviewers on this tv program are highly anti whaling - and its a TV program - not the IWC scientific committee - I think its about time that we start noting what comes from the SC committee of the IWC and what comes from the plenary ( political ) committee - and what is media reports - it makes a big difference. Comments / objections / discussion before I rewrite?? SammytheSeal 06:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This section is a start, please help improve it. Last time I attempted a more stubby start you deleted it: [5]. The section pretty much all comes from Catalyst, and as you've noted there is a strong bias in it. However, we didn't have a section on whale research, and it's an important issue, as virtually all whaling is done under the banner of "scientific research", so, basically it's a start.

Yes, please include more information and other POVs, but the points made by these scientists aren't bad ones and should be included as well. I couldn't track down the exact title of the paper mentioned in the program either (at the end of the above quote), and some links to the actual papers published by JARPA wouldn't go astray either (if any are available online).

The part about age data comes from a quote by Dr Nick Gales, "scientific committee member of the International Whaling Commission, and a reknowned scientific whaling critic" (again, from the Catalyst episode). Of course a reference to the IWC's own material may be preferable. The complete Cataylst program and transcript are available on the abc website: Whale Science (Catalyst) —Pengo 00:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pengo, already working on collecting various references/cites ;) Re: deleting the stub - i deleted it simply as it was unsubstantiated. One other thing though, ''it's an important issue, as virtually all whaling is done under the banner of "scientific research'' Is simply not true, Norway has had a purely commercial hunt since 1995 and until recently, were taking more minkies than Japan yearly- indeed, Norway´s current quotas are higher than the Japanese scientific hunt in the antartic. I´ll try and dig up links to the specific papers ( or some of them anyway )Here´s a link to a summary of Japanese papers submitted to the IWC Scientific committee [6]

Here´s a link to an IWC paper on the relevance of age data - they seem to think it´s important, unlike Gales ;) [7]

Here´s an extract from the IWC scientific committee review of Jarpa 1

" The results from the JARPA programme, while not required for management under the RMP, have the potential to improve management of minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere in the following ways: (1) reductions in the current set of plausible scenarios considered in Implementation Simulation Trials; and (2) identification of new scenarios to which future Implementation Simulation Trials will have to be developed (e.g. the temporal component of stock structure). The results of analyses of JARPA data could be used in this way perhaps to increase the allowed catch of minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere, without increasing depletion risk above the level indicated by the existing Implementation Simulation Trials of the RMP for these minke whales." From this page : [8]

Here´s an old reply from a JWA spokesman - old but informative :[9]

The thing about cetacean research is that it´s a VAST subject - Japanese scientific whaling is just a tiny part  ;)SammytheSeal 15:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Great :) Glad to have my misconceptions busted. I look forward to seeing the section expanded. Note that IWC says age data improves management, but is not "required", which was Gales' point. —Pengo 15:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Me again Pengo;) Gales quote was " But the important point is that within the IWC, you don’t need that age data. To establish a catch limit for whaling you need information about population structure, abundance and prior whaling history. You don’t need age data." Which is strictly speaking, in view of how the RMP is set up, true. However, Gales omits that age data improves Whaling management, and as such the RMP - which is a crucial ommission - he´s cherry picking to support his stance on TV - naughty boy ;). If you´re going to whale sustainably, you want the very best management procedures in place - Gales ignores that for whatever reason. Note also that if Japan decides to leave the IWC, ( which is looking more and more likely IMO )Age data will be highly relevant in deciding quotas outside of the RMP. Note also, Norway conducts commercial whaling as if they were whaling under the RMP .. they use a different tuning level (0.60 instead of 0.72 ) but thats also within IWC limits. They "could" take 2000 minkies a year if the so wished by strictly following the RMP. I´ll rewrite it when I´ve found all the sources/cites ;)SammytheSeal 15:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm for some weird and wonderful reason, my edits today on this section are not showing up ?? Is there some sort of protection? SammytheSeal (talk) 10:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

History section

I noticed that User:Prestonmcconkie removed a fact and its citation [10]. I'm of somewhat mixed minds about the change; if the problem was that the language didn't correctly express the contents of the citation, wouldn't it be sufficient to just change the language in the article instead of removing the fact and its source? On the other hand, there is a whole article on the history of whaling, and I think we should only have a very short, concise summary of the history of whaling. Therefore, the question becomes "is it important that early whaling altered ecology?" I think it is important because there seems to be a dichotamous view of whaling, that modern whaling is qualitatively instead of just quantitatively different from aboriginal whaling. The use of this journal article gives interested readers the facts to think about that question. Enuja 20:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Enuja, I like your point, and I agree with your purpose in putting that reference there. And you are right, it would have been better to alter the wording than to take the citation completely out. However, I didn't personally understand the purpose for putting the statement and citation just where it was, and lacking your perspective, I couldn't see why it was important at all.

Now I do see the importance, and I would like to see it put back in. But I don't think it should be in conjunction with the statement on whaling affecting the evolution of "many cultures." I think it should go in all by itself, and the significance of the cited material pointed out (without violating POV principles, of course). -- Preston McConkie 07:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't put the reference in myself; it's just one of the few things I didn't take out. But I'm glad we can agree that it's a useful fact to have, and whomever comes up with good language to put it back in first, can put it back in. Enuja 02:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Okay, I've put it back in. I was lucky that the article has plenty of background in it, including that usual assumption that Inuit didn't alter ecology by their hunting and gathering, so that bit of the fact is covered by the article. I'm still a little worried that the language is too detailed for a short summary section that sends readers to two different articles for the meat of the information. I also added a fact tag on the "whaling affected the development of many cultures" bit that I'd left go unmolested on my last edit of that section. It really would be nice to get a source for that. Enuja 03:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement not supported by evidence moved here for further research: "The Dutch should be given the most blame in depleting bowhead whale populations in the North Atlantic." (Netherlands section) Mondeo (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction in "Modern Whaling Section"

Currently, the article contains a rather glaring contradiction. In the "Modern Whaling" section entry for Greenland it states - "Greenland Inuit whalers kill around 175 whales per year, making them the third largest hunt in the world after Norway and Japan". However, directly above this, in the Faroe Islands entry it states - "Around 950 long-finned pilot whales (Globicephala melaena) are killed annually, although mainly during the summer". If Greenland are in third place with 175 animals hunted, and Japan and Norway are in second and first places with however many animals hunted, where exactly do the Faroe Islands fit in with their 950 animals hunted? Surely Greenland should be demoted to fourth place, behind Japan, Norway and the Faroe Islands. Greenland can't have the third largest hunt when 3 other countries have larger hunts than they do. Give the Faroe Islands the credit they deserve and a place in the top 3. Malbolge (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as how pilot whales are dolphins, I wouldn't consider pilot whaling whaling per se, but dolphin hunting. I'm sure others would disagree, but I only consider whaling to include the exploitation of mysticetes, sperm whales, and ziphiids. Jonas Poole (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you - I don´t consider the "grind" to come under whaling either... SammytheSeal (talk) 08:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Intelligence

There is a main article on animal intelligence and one on cetacean intelligence, so I think keeping the section here short is important. A recent revision by an anonymous editor added information on the general field of studying animal intelligence and on intelligence in non-cetaceans; I don't think this information is relevant to this article. Enuja (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Whaling in the Faroe Islands

This section is repeatedly vandalized. To anyone who might be planning to do so (again): your not improving the article and you clearly don´t know anything at all about whaling in the Faroes either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.77.131.153 (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4