Talk:Essex (whaleship)

Article name

I moved this to "Whaleship Essex" because I believe that is the most common way to which it is referred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpbsmith (talk • contribs)

What? Why the hell would you capitalize whaleship? That just looks stupid. It should either say Essex (whaleship) or Essex (whaler).Jonas Poole (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Revenge of the Whale

W/o changing the article I want/wanted to mention the book Revenge of the Whale by Nathaniel Philbrick which compiles all of the accounts INCLUDING Thomas nickerson the cabin boy. it is relatively short at 160 pgs (hardcover print) but includes any necessary info this article needs. IF this article is in need of info contact me at 2016edrake1@jpsstudents.org

Crew list

Crew List and other data from I'm adding (and will add) is from In the Heart of the Sea: The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex by Nathaniel Philbrick; the actual book, not the article... --Moby 10:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The Pariahs

Opera about "Whaleship Essex" - The Pariahs by Leonard Kastle

This is a reminder to myself to include a description of this American opera and a link to a reference on it. It was first performed as excerpts from the full Opera in Albany NY 1986. I sang in the chorus. I didn't edit the article because I need a proper reference besides my own experiences which would be original research. The Opera takes place on Nantucket after the return of the survivors and features themes of forgiveness and redemption through faith which are common to Kastle's American Cycle of Operas.

Anyone think this addition would be inappropriate, please say so. Lisapollison 20:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, I had never heard of this. Here's a google link to get you started: [1]. I'll try and find some time to read some of the results in the next few days. --Moby 08:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I cannot think of any argument against a 'References in popular culture' section. They are common enough throughout WP. Should one be started, it might also contain a mention of the fact that the Owen Coffin of the Essex is the one to whom the whaling song Nantucket Sleighride is dedicated (on the Mountain album of the same name). Grubstreet (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Erroneous links

I don't think that the active link to Joseph West in the side bar is the same Joseph West intended (a senator from Louisiana instead of the crewman). I'd edit it myself, but I'm not sure how. January 29 2007.

The link from the cannibalised cabin boy to Owen Coffin, governor of Connecticut is equally misguided. I'll remove it. Grubstreet (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, I've gone one better and created a short article on Owen Coffin to replace the redirect to the politician. That way, at least people searching for the Owen Coffin in the song dedication (see above) now have a route to the information they are looking for. Grubstreet (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Tonnage

I have changed the phrase "displaced 238 tons" to "measured 238 tons". While Nathaniel Philbrick's book indicates that 238 tons was the displacement or mass of the vessel, that assumption appears to be based on a primary source, the ship's 1799 register, which among other specifications states that "she measures two hundred thirty eight tons". That 1799 register is quoted verbatim (using the word "measures") in Heart of the Sea, p. 241, citing in turn Thos. Heffernan's Stove by a Whale (1981) at p. 10. As the primary source uses the word "measures" it is appropriate to use that term, not "displacement", which is likely incorrect.

There is a significant difference between the two metrics. See Tonnage. As the original source (the 1799 register) uses the term "measures" I have changed the article to conform. In all likelihood the actual measure was tons burthen, which was commonly used at the time, but we need a source. Kablammo (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering which "Ton" was referred to here, from recent research it looks like the long ton of 2240 pounds, confirmed by the "burthen ton" mentioned above. I would like to include the Metric Ton or Tonne equivalent in the article.Metricmike (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Tons burthen have nothing to do with weight. Look at the article for Builder's Old Measurement, which also redirects from Burthen. Also take a look at Tonnage. At the time involved here, ships, even warships, were not measured by displacement, and neither Tonnage nor Burthen can be measured by weight. Kablammo

See below at Tonnage redux for more on this subject. Kablammo (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Moving

Shouldn't this be moved to Whaleship Essex tragedy? And what about the history of the whaleship? - PGSONIC 19:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it should. Sadly, someone merged the book In the Heart of the Sea, the article about the tragedy, and the article about the ship itself all into one giant article. This is now how Wikipedia works. Books get their own articles. Ships get their own articles. Specific historical events get their own articles. This is done for a number of reasons, not the least being proper categorization. Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Other information

As I found it, this article, whose title suggests it's about the entire career of the ship, is really just about the sinking and aftermath; indeed, far more of the article concerns events after the ship was sunk than otherwise, making it odd that the name of the article would be that of the ship. It could be re-named, say, "The Essex incident", or the article could be expanded to include more than a couple of sentences about the ship before the day it sank. I'm inclined to the latter, so I broke the article into sections and wrote an introduction to this effect. Has anyone information about the previous career of the ship or even of its voyage before the incident? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Philbrick's book has several pages describing the vessel, but only one paragraph on her prior career; the facts there are only that she quite small, was a "lucky" and "happy" vessel, and was successful and made her owners wealthy. Kablammo (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sink sank sunk, or sink sunk sunk

I have noticed that the simple past of this verb is realized as "sank" in this article when it describes what the boat did (ie: as an intransitive verb), and as "sunk" when it is used as a transitive verb to describe what the whale did to the boat.

I was on the verge of correcting this, when I checked myself and noticed that I also tend to do this. I then asked around, to several other native speakers. I asked them which they would choose for what the iceberg did to the Titanic and then what the Titanic did. Everyone agreed that "The whale sunk the boat" sounds better than "The whale sank the boat", and that "The boat sank to the bottom" sounds better than "The boat sunk to the bottom."

Now, here's the really wierd thing: I looked it up in a bunch of different places and found no mention of this phenomenon. It just says "sink, sank, sunk" whether it has an object or not: Websters, Oxford, Random House, grammar books, dictionaries, and usage dictionaires.

My questions to you: Do you agree that the simple past of "sink" is either "sank" or "sunk", depending on whether it's something one thing did to another, or whether it's something one thing did?

In other words, which do you say/prefer to say?

1. The whale sunk the boat; the boat sunk.

2. The whale sank the boat; the boat sank.

3. The whale sunk the boat; the boat sank.

4. The whale sank the boat; the boat sunk.

(By the way, it helps to pretend you are telling the story and let your brain get sort of a "running start" and notice which word it produces. If you think about it too much, you're likely to be unsure. It's kind of like trying to draw a straight line or a perfect circle; it's easier to do quickly; almost impossible if you do it too slowly.)

The next question is, is there any reference for this? Does any reference you have access to say that this is in fact the way this verb is conjugated?

Finally, if you agree that the simple past should be "sank" in all cases, do you think the article should be changed? Chrisrus (talk) 06:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

What part of the country are you from? "The whale sunk the boat" sounds very bad to me. I'm from the Northwest USA. 24.21.10.30 (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Does "The boat sunk" sound equally bad to you? (Anyway, this has been changed.) Chrisrus (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The Oxford's examples of straightforward past tense give "sank" regardless of whether the verb is used transitively or intransitively. In other words, no difference between "the ship sank" and "the whale sank the ship". Oxford labels "sunk" as a participle, which you would expect to find in compound verbal forms. Therefore "oh no – we are sunk!" or "the ship was sunk by the whale".

One would expect a participle to also be the form used to create an adjective, giving you "we dived down to the sunk ship", but in Britain I would always expect to hear "sunken" ship/treasure/hopes (Bowie's Life on Mars has "she walks through her sunken dreams"). I think this is also true of US English – certainly in the case of the Sunken Gardens in St Petersburg, Florida. Grubstreet (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. On this topic, please just mark my words. I predict that this phenomenon will be noticed by others and remarked upon by some citable source eventually. As I say, this has already been changed by someone in the article and therefore doesn't qualify as discussing the article anymore so it's become off-topic. I did enjoy hearing what you found and had to say about it, though. Thanks again.

Now, at the moment, I'd love it if you would like to respond to my "She's a ship" question, below.Chrisrus (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

She's a ship.

Someone changed the "she" to "it", but I undid the edit. Was I wrong to do so? Chrisrus (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You are right. Ships are always called SHE. It's strange but submarines are called IT. They are also called boats while you never call a ship a boat. I was in the Navy Herogamer (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

excessive sodium, or sodium chloride?

Thanks to the FDA, NaCl is now commonly referred to as "sodium," which it definitely is not (sodium is poisonous.) However, in this article, since it mentions "excessive sodium" it may refer to the actual element Na, or excessive NaCl, which makes sense considering that they're at sea. I was going to correct it to "sodium chloride" but I'm not sure if that would be correct.98.217.33.12 (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You are right; I say go ahead and make the change you propose. I also suggest you consider whether saying "salt" instead might be even better for the reader. Chrisrus (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Or even "Health effects" at Salt? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What they didn't know at the time is that if you cut fresh water 2:1 with salt water it will stretch your drinking water with no ill effects. Herogamer (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

numbers and wording

By the time the last of the eight survivors were rescued on April 5, 1821, they had consumed the corpses of seven fellow sailors.

This sentence is rather puzzling. Out of context, I'd take it to mean that eight men survived the sinking but only one was rescued, having eaten the other seven, so I'd change 'were' to 'was'. So that's a sign that the sentence ought to be restructured.

If I understand the article right, five living men were found in boats, and told their rescuers about the three on Henderson, who apparently survived without eating anyone. So is April 5 when the second boatload was rescued, or when someone went to Henderson? Either way, "they" is misleading. —Tamfang (talk) 04:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Number of whaleboats

As written, the number of whaleboats doesn't seem to add up.

At the start, "the Essex was equipped with four separate whaleboats". Next, "three whaleboats were destroyed. Deciding to continue without replacing the boats..." But then, Chase's boat is destroyed, and there are still three remaining. I presume that the destroyed boats were replaced in South America, but I won't change the article because this is guesswork. Pete Ridges (talk) 08:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's the story of the whaleboats. My reference is The Wreck of the Whaleship Essex (1965): Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., New York :

• At the time of launch she carried 4 28-foot whaleboats and a spare. (pg. 19). That's 5.
• On the second day out, a storm "stove one of our boats and entirely destroyed two others" (pg. 24). That leaves 3 after the stove boat was repaired.
• At the isle of May (Cape Verde) they purchased one boat from the wreck of the Archimedes (pg. 25). That's 4.
• At latitude 1° 0' south, longitude 180° west, they lost a boat during work in a shoal of whales (pg. 27). That leaves 3,

and is the number they had on the morning of the attack. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem seems to be our article (Old revision of Essex (whaleship)) doesn't mean any purchase at least not that I can see. It mentions:

Essex was equipped with four whaleboats, each about 28 ft (8.5 m) in length. In addition, she had a spare whaleboat below decks.

so we start with 5

She lost her topgallant sail, and had one whaleboat damaged and two destroyed. Captain Pollard was forced to continue without replacing the two boats or repairing the damage.

we now have 3 (one is damaged)

When they finally found a whale on 16 November, the whale surfaced directly beneath Chase's boat, with the result that it was "dashed...literally in pieces".

now 2

At eight in the morning of 20 November 1820, the lookout sighted spouts, and the three remaining whaleboats set out to pursue a pod of sperm whales.

wait how do we now have 3? These 3 are also the ones they later escaped with.... In other words, anyone who reads our article is likely to be fairly confused by the numbers.

I don't like to add things when I haven't read the source myself and in any case I don't know when this Archimedes purchase happened exactly so it would be good if this could be added to the article appropriately sourced. Also I presume the damaged boat was repaired at some stage but when this happened isn't mentioned. (This isn't quite so confusing since a damaged boat being repair but unmentioned isn't quite as confusing as there suddenly being an extra boat, but should still be clarified.)

Nil Einne (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Extinctions of species following the fire

The article states 'It is believed the fire contributed to the extinction of the Floreana Tortoise and the Floreana Mockingbird.', however, the latter at least is listed as still surviving as of 2013! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.110.120.98 (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Clinker built boats

The statements that clinker built boats are less durable but faster than carvel built boats are puzzling, at least on the face of it. In fact, for small boats like those of whalers, clinker or lapstrake built boats are generally considered to be more durable than carvel built boats and also more seaworthy. 169.232.151.226 (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Tonnage redux

For background, see above at Talk:Essex_(whaleship)#Tonnage

With the online availability of the relevant pages of Thos. Heffernan's book Stove by a Whale (now cited in the Sources section of the article), it should be clear to all that the 238-ton measure of size is in fact American tons burthen. This measure has nothing to do with displacement. We know that the ship was registered at 238 72/95 tons, and as shown in the section linked just above, that was the U.S. measure of tons burthen, as the denominator in the fraction is 95.

The significance of this is that Nathaniel Philbrick is wrong. He assumes that the 238-ton ship is about three times the mass of the 80-ton whale. (In the Heart of the Sea, pp. 2, 86–91, 256.) The problem is that the mass (weight) of Essex is not what he thinks-- he takes the ship's tonnage as being weight, when in fact it is anything but. Kablammo (talk) 14:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

(As an aside: It is likely that the numerical value of the actual displacement of Essex was much larger than that for tons burthen. But to determine that displacement we would need length of the hull at the waterline, draft, and the block coefficient of the wetted hull.) Kablammo (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Disagreement about clinker and carvel planked whaleboats

I disagree with the following assertion: "These boats were built for speed rather than durability, being clinker built, with planks that overlapped each other rather than fitting flush together.[5]" Clinker boats are not inherently weaker than carvel planks. The overlapping planks of clinker construction actually add strength to the hull by acting effectively as stringers throughout the hull. Carvel planks do not reinforce one another. The overall strength of the hull also depends on other factors such as frames, bulkheads, and additional stringers. For a given weight, clinker hulls are in fact sturdier than carvel planking.

Article renaming

As noted by prior editors above, this article is primarily about the last voyage of the Essex, and not the ship herself. The article needs to be renamed to reflect its true content. PGSONIC previously suggested Whaleship Essex tragedy, but I think that has too much POV per wp:POVTITLE. Kablammo, Dino, Miesianiacal, before I rename it, what do you think it ought to be renamed? (I like the first one)

• Sinking of the whaler Essex
• Essex sinking
• Last voyage of the Essex
• Sinking of the Essex

Other suggestions? — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 20:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose renaming. While the bulk of the article is indeed about the sinking, the ship itself is large enough to be included under WP:SHIPS' criterion and is sufficiently notable, even if most of the sources are from the sinking. I believe renaming would simply be a pointless bit of bureaucracy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose renaming. There has been a movement to move minor events involving single ships to their individual pages. For example, the recent North Korean cargo ship seizure in Panama merger. Renaming this article will only result in the new article being merged into a future page about this ship. Llammakey (talk) 01:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose renaming as proposed. Essex (whaler) might just be a better title, but there is nothing inherently wrong with the current title. Mjroots (talk) 19:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose renaming - per above, also this survey question should be re-worded. It is written with the assumption that a need for change is already a given, and this survey is just to select a new name. "Oppose rename at all" should be included as an option. - ^theWOLFchild 06:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Alternative suggestion

Mjroots, Llammakey, Thewolfchild, Kablammo, Dino, Miesianiacal, thanks for your replies above. Based on the suggestion offered by Mjroots above, I suggest renaming the article "Essex (whaler)". "whaleship" gets 51,000 results on Google, while "whaler" get 71,100 results. "Whaleship" appears to be a more antiquated use, and may have been borrowed from the recent book, "The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex". In other words, the latter usage appears to be 150% more commonly used. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 23:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

How about just leaving it as it is? The current title has been in place for 12 years, since the article was created. Obviously the wording isn't problematic and I don't see a compelling need to change it. Basically, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. - ^theWOLFchild 00:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I see no pressing need for a move either. Mjroots (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for popping in here so late and it seems my comments won't be of much use now, but, I do see btphelps' point; the article really is about the final voyage and the aftermath rather than the ship itself. I'm not able to think of an alternate title, though. It seems from the above RfC it isn't worth considering, anyway. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 06:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Head North or West

@62.155.199.25: According to the source: The tragic paradox of the Essex was that the captain, George Pollard, recommended that they head for Tahiti instead of remaining at sea, but the crew was fearful of encountering cannibals and overruled him. As Melville wrote in his annotations in his copy of Chase's Narrative: All the sufferings of these miserable men of the Essex might, in all human probability, have been avoided had they immediately after leaving the wreck, steered straight for Tahiti, from which they were not very distant at the time. To me this begs the question, "Where were they ?" to sail North to Tahiti you would have to be in Antarctica but, if you were coming around Cape Horn (as the article states) Tahiti would be West. Mlpearc (open channel) 15:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Name

As I said on my talk page here, there's no need to add "1799" to the title. There aren't any articles on other whaleships named "Essex" to disambiguate from, so it's overly precise. Essex (whaleship) is still a redirect, meaning anyone who clicks on or types in that wording comes here anyway, rendering the overlong current name moot.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Cuchullain: - just because there are no articles on the other three (at least) whalers named Essex, doesn't mean that the dab isn't valid. Mjroots2 (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it does; per WP:PRECISE, "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." If there are no other articles on whaleships to distinguish this one from, the year is unnecessary.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Other ships attacked by whales

The Essex was hardly the only whaleship to be rammed by a sperm whale. Others include the the Union in 1807, Pusie Hall in 1835, the Lydia and the Two Generals in 1836, the Pocahontas in 1850, the Ann Alexander in 1851, and the Kathleen in 1902 (all except the Pusie Hall and the Pocahontas sank). MR2David (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Other stuff exists. I don’t really think this belongs in this article. Springnuts (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Those other incidents shed no light on this one. And they can be accessed through the category "Whale collisions with ships". Kablammo (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 16 July 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved as consensus is clearly against the move. SSTflyer 13:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

---

Essex (whaleship) → Essex (ship) – It is clear from searching that this Essex is overwhelmingly the primary topic not only for whaleships called Essex, but for ships called Essex in general. (Three pages of Google hits before I come across any other Essex.) Moreover, using the pageviews analysis tool shows that it gets astronomically more page hits than other articles on ships called Essex (the next-highest is USS Essex (CV-9) with fewer than one-fifth as many hits, it's possible that this one gets more hits than all other Essex ships combined). This should be where users go when they look for Essex (ship), and the disambiguation links currently at that page should be in a subsection of Essex (disambiguation). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose move as suggested. Essex (1799 whaler) is probably the best title if the article has to be moved, but definitely not the proposed title, which is a valid disambiguation page. Mjroots (talk) 07:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The article doesn't "have to" be moved; the proposal is an improvement, whereas yours is the opposite. See WP:DAB. In cases of an obvious primary topic that users are clearly looking for, "the term should lead" to the topic in question. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
    • The obvious primary topic of "Essex" is the county of that name in England. That page has a link to Essex (disambiguation), which has Essex (whaleship) prominently linked. Where's the problem? Mjroots (talk) 05:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mjroots. Llammakey (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. No need to move; Google results are heavily weighted toward recent uses (book and recent film); present names are the best. Kablammo (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Firstly, a substantial number of non-recent Google hits are also about this Essex rather than others (filtering out the ones that aren't about ships called Essex but that name Essex County, the earl of Essex, etc.), because the loss of the Essex is a famous event that was the basis of a major American novel. Secondly and relatedly, just because it's currently a hot topic doesn't mean it's not also of primary historical interest - we don't insist that Alexander Hamilton be a disambiguation page simply because the main one is currently the subject of a musical! And thirdly, what about the usage statistics? Wikipedia users are overwhelmingly interested in this Essex over other Essexes and are presumably passing right through the levels of disambiguation to get to it, and we should be facilitating their navigation rather than deliberately hampering it out of a mis-aimed crusade against recentism. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Given that we have a number of articles on ships named Essex, the proposal would be incomplete disambiguation. Since the article requires disambiguation - clearly it's not the primary topic of Essex - it should be fully distinguished from ambiguously-titled articles.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Song about the Essex

Singer/Songwriter Justin Sullivan has written a Song about this incident (this one) - Would this be good for 'in popular culture? It's pretty good imho, but its not yet included in any official release...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.199.165 (talk) 10:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we should include it, unless and until the song gets broader notice. The youtube recording is terrible, but would not pass muster as a source even if it were good. Kablammo (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

"four island natives"

What island(s)? Nantucket is listed separately as an origin of crew members, so it's evidently not meant to mean Nantucket island. Are these four from the South Sea islands? An editor who has the source(s) should clarify MayerG (talk) 11:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The statement is incorrect. According to Philbrick, Cole was "a young white off-islander" (p. 149); Weeks and Wright were from Cape Cod (p. 145), and West was also an "off-islander" (p. 149). Kablammo (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

"Essex (whaleship" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Essex (whaleship has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 3 § Essex (whaleship until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

"The cause of the whale's aggression is not known"

The current version of this article says "The cause of the whale's aggression is not known." However, isn't there at least some possibility that the whale attacked the ship because the men on the ship were killing whales? 98.123.38.211 (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)