| Revision as of 05:49, 31 July 2023 editEluchil404 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,405 edits →Better wording for section of threats to humans in opening← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 10:05, 21 December 2024 edit undo62.73.72.3 (talk) →Longevity in captivity vs in the wild: new sectionTag: New topic |
| (45 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Top 25 Report|Sep 7 2014 (18th)}} |
|
|
{{Old move|date=January 2009 |from=Orca |destination=Killer Whale |result=Moved|link=Talk:Orca/Archive_4#Requested_move |
|
|
|date2=January 2010 |from2=Killer Whale |destination2=Killer whale |result2=Moved|link2=Talk:Orca/Archive_5#Requested_move |
|
|
|date3=March 2010 |from3=Killer whale |destination3=Orca |result3=Not moved|link3=Talk:Orca/Archive_5#Move? |
|
|
|date4=June 2015 |from4=Killer whale |destination4=Orca |result4=Not moved |link4=Talk:Orca/Archive_6#Requested_move_19_June_2015 |
|
|
|date5=January 2022 |from5=Killer whale |destination5=Orca |result5=Moved |link5=Talk:Orca/Archive_6#Requested_move_25_January_2022}} |
|
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
| Line 22: |
Line 16: |
|
|collapse=yes |
|
|collapse=yes |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|class=FA|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=FA|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Cetaceans|class=FA|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Cetaceans|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Japan|class=FA|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Japan|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Canada|bc=yes|class=FA|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Canada|bc=yes|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States|class=fa|importance=mid|WA=yes|WA-importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=mid|WA=yes|WA-importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Cascadia}} |
|
{{WikiProject Cascadia}} |
|
{{WikiProject Africa |class=FA |importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Africa|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Norway|class=FA}} |
|
{{WikiProject Norway |importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Arctic|class=FA|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Arctic|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Mammals|class=FA|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Mammals|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Marine life|class=FA|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Marine life|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Environment|class=FA|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=FA|category=Natsci}} |
|
|
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Biology|class=FA}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Old move|date=January 2009 |from=Orca |destination=Killer Whale |result=Moved|link=Talk:Orca/Archive_4#Requested_move |
|
{{DEFAULTSORT:Killer Whale}} |
|
|
|
|date2=January 2010 |from2=Killer Whale |destination2=Killer whale |result2=Moved|link2=Talk:Orca/Archive_5#Requested_move |
|
|
|date3=March 2010 |from3=Killer whale |destination3=Orca |result3=Not moved|link3=Talk:Orca/Archive_5#Move? |
|
|
|date4=June 2015 |from4=Killer whale |destination4=Orca |result4=Not moved |link4=Talk:Orca/Archive_6#Requested_move_19_June_2015 |
|
|
|date5=January 2022 |from5=Killer whale |destination5=Orca |result5=Moved |link5=Talk:Orca/Archive_6#Requested_move_25_January_2022}} |
|
{{Refideas|{{cite news|url=https://apnews.com/355cf8f5397f439d993431328cbf2bfa|publisher=]|title=Scientists discover different kind of killer whale off Chile|last=Borenstein|first=Seth|date=March 7, 2019}}}} |
|
{{Refideas|{{cite news|url=https://apnews.com/355cf8f5397f439d993431328cbf2bfa|publisher=]|title=Scientists discover different kind of killer whale off Chile|last=Borenstein|first=Seth|date=March 7, 2019}}}} |
|
{{Spoken Misplaced Pages request|Catfurball|Important}} |
|
{{Spoken Misplaced Pages request|Catfurball|Important}} |
|
|
{{Top 25 Report|Sep 7 2014 (18th)}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 125K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 125K |
|
|counter = 6 |
|
|counter = 7 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|algo = old(100d) |
|
|algo = old(100d) |
| Line 55: |
Line 51: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== "also called" or "or" == |
|
== Surfer Bitten claim needs a source == |
|
"Orca or killer whale" and "Orca, also called killer whale" are both fine. Readers will understand either way. Still, it would be better to discuss the arguments for/against either construction here than in edit-warring summaries. ] ] 22:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{ping|Rebecca Beecham Gotzl|Str1977}}, please discuss the lead sentence here. (You both have 3 reverts today.) ] ] 00:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thank you for your ping, which I am not presuming will work in my favor. In any event, I am happy to avoid ongoing edit-warring. |
|
|
::If the two variants are equally good, editing the original was unnecessary. I believe the original is standard and encyclopedic prose for this case. Compare the ] wording, for example—also the subject of naming controversy. "Also called killer whale," as if it is an alias, deprecates the name still widely used in scientific publications, as is evidenced in the article's references. I maintain that balance and neutrality are best reflected in the original wording. |
|
|
::But I am prepared to yield, though in my opinion the result would be inferior English prose, and Wikipedian style. ] (]) 01:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The "or", while commonly used in journalism, is sloppy wording and, as you call it, "inferior English prose". It suggests that there are two subjects of this article (that can be the case with some articles) standing side by side, when in fact it is one animal known by different names. |
|
|
:::"also known as" doesn't deprecate the second name at all, even though in this case it is clearly the non-scientific, colloquial name. "also known as" means the very same as what your version intents, just in a clearer way. |
|
|
:::Any argument of "editing the original was unnecesssary" equally falls on the revert as well. |
|
|
:::] ] 10:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I'm afraid I might have triggered this dispute. An editor completely removed from the lead, with the edit summary {{tq|That's not its scientific name}}. I thought perhaps their objection was "killer whale" being immediately followed by "''Orcinus orca''", so when I restored "killer whale", I put it after the scientific name with "also called". {{pb}}The lead was {{tq|Killer whale or orca}} from 2009 until January 2022 when the article title was changed from '''Killer whale''' to '''Orca''' and the lead then swapped to {{tq|Orca or killer whale}}. I don't think either variation (''or'' or ''also called'') is worth warring over. ] ] 13:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Thank you for your historical overview of this matter. I agree, and will not defend against further edits to this article. Many of the world's whale populations, including orca populations, are only sketchily described in Misplaced Pages, or lack up-to-date contributions. I hope my colleagues there will work to improve this situation. Note that ] has now been altered. ] (]) 18:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::@Schazjmd: I completely agree with your take on this. ] ] 21:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Orca range map should include eastern North Sea and adjacent waters == |
|
|
|
|
|
The current map shows a boundary in the middle of the North Sea, but for several years, Orcas have been regularly seen east of that line, in Skagerrak, Kattegat and along the western shores of Jutland, Denmark. Perhaps an update is in order? ] (]) 13:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I just checked the IUCN reference which usually has accurate range information. Indeed, their information matches what you are requesting. As well, the Antarctic range needs expanding as well. I will put in a request with the map makers at ]. Thanks! - ] ] 14:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::<span class="nowrap">]''' Done'''</span><!--template:done--> - ] ] 12:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Reliability of BBC Earth YouTube channel == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, I recently added a link to a BBC Earth YouTube channel. |
|
|
My edit was |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Orcas will engage in surplus killing, that is, killing that is not designed to be for food. As an example, a BBC film crew witnessed orca in British Columbia playing with a male Steller sea lion to exhaustion, but not eating it.''' |
|
|
|
|
|
The reference linked to this video (at 2:06) |
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f-FsAUcqMs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This was reverted by @] with the reason "Not a documentary, dubious that it's a reliable source". |
|
|
|
|
|
What does the Wiki Community think about the reliability of BBC Earth as a source? I think it's very reliable, and so my text has no problem. ] (]) 00:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:@], please check the article history. After your edit, an editor added an '''External link''' to nextstates.com and labelled it a documentary (it wasn't). That is the edit I reverted. ] ] 12:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Hi Schazjmd. Sorry, I didn't realise that. Problem solved. ] (]) 12:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Avengers == |
|
|
|
|
|
Does the Avengers episode "Killer Whale" really need to be mentioned in the part before the lead? It doesn't really seem notable enough for a redirect explanation. (''"Killer Whale" redirects here. For'' The Avengers ''episode, see'' ]''.)'' |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 18:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I tend to agree that the TV episode doesn't seem notable enough. However, for comparison, there are Doctor Who episodes (also from the 1960's) called "The Chase" and "The Crusade". |
|
|
|
|
|
:https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_Doctor_Who_episodes_(1963%E2%80%931989)#Season_2_(1964%E2%80%931965) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The Chase is mentioned in the disambiguation page |
|
|
|
|
|
:https://en.wikipedia.org/The_Chase |
|
|
|
|
|
:as is "The Crusade" |
|
|
|
|
|
:https://en.wikipedia.org/Crusade_(disambiguation) |
|
|
|
|
|
:So, based on that, maybe the "Killer Whale" disambiguation link is OK. ] (]) 04:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Citations or Links == |
|
|
|
|
|
I noticed that the last sentence of the 4th introduction paragraph has no citation or reference link for the claim made. I decided to make an account and mention this because I've wanted to fix typos and provide citations for things in the past but admittedly been too lazy to contribute, and also because I thought that was an interesting piece of information but I was left thinking "but to who and why?" which made me question the veracity of the claim in general. My account is too young to do edits on protected pages (and I will be a novice contributor for a while, don't want to step on anyone's toes) but I just intended to add a "citation needed" marker to the end of the sentence. I may remember to look around for a citation myself but I make no promises of doing so prior to 6/8/23 since I am a student and need to study for my final exams and write term papers. Any guidance is greatly appreciated and thank you for doing important work, I hope to do some here as well since I love knowledge and free access to it. ] (]) 07:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:Hi @] and welcome!{{pb}}It's common for the lead (the text before the first subheading) to be uncited; you can read more about it at ]. The purpose of the lead is to summarize the body of the article (which is where the citations are generally listed). Now, if you find something in the lead that isn't properly supported in the body, asking for a citation is helpful, but not if it's simply a summary version of more detailed and sourced content below. Hope that helps, and good luck on your exams! ] ] 14:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::And specifically, the final sentence of the lead appears to be a summary of ], which I believe answers the who and why. ] (]) 15:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Orca "Killer" stereotype Pliny citation == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello! Local Latin teacher here. Pliny does use the Latin word "orca," but this term does not mean ''our'' orca per se, rather it is a word used elsewhere in the Latin language to mean a large-bellied vessel (https://logeion.uchicago.edu/orca), and it is used only three times in Pliny to distinguish this specific creature from the more general ''balaena'' (whale). The article should probably say something like (updating the translation included in the article itself to actually reflect the English translation links in the citation note): |
|
|
|
|
|
The first use of the word "orca" to discuss a whale was by ], c. 70 CE, to differentiate one creature from the other whales he was discussing. Pliny describes orcas as "...an animal which is peculiarly hostile to the balaena , and the form of which cannot be in any way adequately described, but as an enormous mass of flesh armed with teeth. This animal attacks the balaena its places of retirement, and with its teeth tears its young, or else attacks the females which have just brought forth, and, indeed, while they are still pregnant: and as they rush upon them, it pierces them just as though they had been attacked by the beak of a ] galley."(citation included in the original article should be fine here). Pliny also claims that an "orca" swam into the port at ] during the reign of ], eating fallen imported goods from the ships, before getting stuck in the sandy port and killed by the order of the Emperor.<sup>Citation = </sup> It is unclear whether Pliny's orca is the same as the modern orca; however, scholars in the 19th century identified the first orca discussed by Pliny as "the Delphinus orca of Linnaeus" based on the orca's behavior, whereas the orca who was stuck in the port as Ostia was more likely to be a "] ".<sup>citation = https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0137:book=9:chapter=5#note2</sup> |
|
|
|
|
|
I hope this helps, and I apologize for any issues of formatting etc. This is my first Misplaced Pages contribution! Thanks for all y'all do. ] (]) 18:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Thanks {{u|Zethomas753}}, that's good stuff! I have incorporated it into the article at ]. Cheers! --<span style="font-family:Courier">]</span> <small>(] · ])</small> 06:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Orca attacks on small boats in Strait of Gibraltar. == |
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/boating-captain-ambushed-orcas-they-knew-exactly-what-they-are-doing/ ] (]) 00:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:OK, but what are you trying to say? I suggest you add some text your post as well.] (]) 22:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot make claims like this without citing a primary source. This needs to be deleted until it can be cited. ] (]) 20:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
== White Gladis orca should it be a whole page or mentioned? == |
|
|
|
:The source at the end of the sentence supports the surfer part of the sentence too. {{tq|"There has never been a documented fatal killer whale attack on a human. The only relatively well-documented bite was one suffered by a surfer in California in the early 1970s"}} ] ] 20:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:If you'd like to do more research, the surfer's name was Hans Kretschmer, and it happened in 1972. Here's the contemporary news report from ''The Los Angeles Times'': . ] ] 21:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== New Speciesbox image? == |
|
Well, you can already buy a Are we witnessing White Gladis becoming a folk hero? White Gladis is the name given to a single orca that many reports claim as being the orca that began the trend of attacking small vessels especially sailboats. According to an organization tracking the attacks by date there were 24 recorded attacks in May 2023 alone. Until about last week, the name White Gladis has been picked up by mostly the fringe news organizations like the Daily Mail. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Per , ''Orcinus'' has been split. The existing Speciesbox image depicts the transient population, now ''Orcinus rectipinnus''. I'm not entirely sure which image would be the best replacement, or if it needs to be replaced at all, but I thought it'd be a good idea to bring it up. ] (]) 14:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
Now CNN has picked up the story and name too. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:For mammals, we wait until secondary sources pick up the work of primary sources. Typically, this means waiting until the new species appears in ASM's MDD, so I'm going to revert your recent changes. - ] ] 17:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
Experts believe White Gladis may have suffered a “critical moment of agony”, such as colliding with a boat or becoming entrapped during illegal fishing, which altered her behaviour in a “defensive” fashion. |
|
|
|
::Ah, got it. Wasn't aware of that requirement. ] (]) 17:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::No worries. Misplaced Pages is a simple complex. ;) - ] ] 17:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::And if they are split, this article would be about the genus ''Orcinus'' so the current picture would still be appropriate. ] (]) 01:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== MDD Update == |
|
“That traumatised orca is the one that started this behaviour of physical contact with boats,” Dr Lopez Fernandez told ''Live Science.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ASM's MDD now has both '''' and '''' listed, though acknowledges that ''O. orca'' remains paraphyletic. Meanwhile, the Society for Marine Mammalogy (considered a taxonomic authority on marine mammals) as subspecies until further research clarifies their status. Separate pages for resident and Bigg's types wouldn't be difficult, at least, but this page might need to be changed. It could be moved to ''Orcinus'' and discuss just the genus, which would require a separate ''O. orca'' page. Or it could remain as-is (with added information on these recent taxonomic proposals) until there's a clearer picture of what researchers are using. ] (]) 04:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
There are currently two relevant pages...] and ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:It's only a matter of time that the paraphyly will get resolved once further research on the other types are done. If we split the two taxa off into their own articles, we could use the common names for the three subspecies SMM adopted but with "orca" instead of "killer whale." So "resident orca," "Bigg's orca," and "common orca." ] | ] 19:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
My position is that attacks upon 500 vessels certainly deserves mention on the main Orca page. However, anything beyond confirmed documentation enters the realm of speculation. No one can prove why the attacks began and attribute it to just one orca. Therefore, I don't think this form of speculation can appear on the main orca page. |
|
|
|
::It does seem that we are nearing the time to make a significant taxonomic update here. It would be good to have the paraphyly sorted out, but with MDD being updated, I have no strong objection left. I suggest making this page to be about both the genus and the paraphyly, while information about the two new species can be their own articles. Once the paraphyly is resolved, we can then erect appropriate new articles and make this one to be only about the genus. - ] ] 19:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::As for name, I actually think we should just use the scientific name for the species articles, and continue to use 'orca' for the genus article; the species' common names aren't that common. - ] ] 19:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I would disagree with the uncommonality of the common name. Both resident and Bigg's/transient (latter being rapidly replaced by the former) were exclusively used to describe the two groups by both scientists and laypeople familiar with them since they were recognized in the 70s. I was also curious regarding adopting full species status instead of subspecies; given that SMM accepted only subspecies status, and there's a good chance that other scientists are going to follow that lead for the time being. |
|
|
:::If we used the common names for the articles, then it would grant flexibility for changing between species/subspecies in the taxobox. I suppose that "common orca" is indeed an invention of SMM, but I think a similar situation happened with ] and the article just accepted it anyways with a note? Alternatively, we could temporarily keep ''O. orca'' as "Orca" and ''Orcinus'' as is; I recall having seen a similar precedent of one species taking the base name without any adjectives, but am still trying to look for it again. ] | ] 23:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Section on threats in intro needs sources == |
|
White Gladis was already added onto the page ]. I am mixed upon inclusion of the name upon that page. But I have not moved to remove it because of speculation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TL;DR The sentence in the intro naming 5 threats to orca populations needs citations. |
|
What I am most in favor of is the creation of an entire new page dedicated to White Gladis....i.e. White Gladis orca. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The section at the beginning has no sources while making 5 factual claims (about things that are threats to orca populations). The one specifically that caused me to doubt and made me think to check was the one about capture for marine mammal parks -- With tens of thousands of animals in the wild, and very few such parks with only a few orca each, I didn't see how this could ever be a threat to population numbers. I looked it up, and it turns out, the claim is support by NOAA! So I will add the source for that claim. Unfortunately I don't have the time to research the other 4. Help would be appreciated. ] (]) 03:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
Thoughts?] (]) 15:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:The relevant information is in ]. I would agree that marine mammal capture is likely a small issue compared to the others for the global population, although it may be a local issue. ] (]) 03:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Better wording for section of threats to humans in opening == |
|
|
|
::It is indeed an issue concerning certain smaller populations. ] (]) 08:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Longevity in captivity vs in the wild == |
|
The sentence "Wild orcas are not considered a threat to humans, and no fatal attack on humans has ever been documented." doesn't read well for me. In particular I missed the "Wild" at the beginning which is key for correct understanding of the second half. Also the passive construction "are not considered" could be considered 'weasel words'. I think something like "Orcas are not usually a threat to humans, and no fatal attack has ever been documented in their natural habitat." would be an improvement. Thoughts? ] (]) 06:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Two studies with opposite conclusions are cited on this subject, but the findings of one of these are retold extensively and stated as fact, while those of the other one are only briefly noted, sandwiched in the middle of the exposition of the findings of the first study, and they are explicitly attributed as the position of its authors only. If this is the only material available, the exposition should be more even-handed, with an equal level of detail and comparable information from both studies and with both positions being explicitly attributed rather than any one of them being presented as the truth. Of course, it is possible that the first study reflects the position predominating among researchers in the field and the second one is isolated, but if so, it should be possible to demonstrate that with more references. ] (]) 10:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:{{u| Eluchil404}}, I agree. ] (]) 12:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:Done. ] (]) 05:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
TL;DR The sentence in the intro naming 5 threats to orca populations needs citations.
The section at the beginning has no sources while making 5 factual claims (about things that are threats to orca populations). The one specifically that caused me to doubt and made me think to check was the one about capture for marine mammal parks -- With tens of thousands of animals in the wild, and very few such parks with only a few orca each, I didn't see how this could ever be a threat to population numbers. I looked it up, and it turns out, the claim is support by NOAA! So I will add the source for that claim. Unfortunately I don't have the time to research the other 4. Help would be appreciated. WiggyWamWam (talk) 03:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Two studies with opposite conclusions are cited on this subject, but the findings of one of these are retold extensively and stated as fact, while those of the other one are only briefly noted, sandwiched in the middle of the exposition of the findings of the first study, and they are explicitly attributed as the position of its authors only. If this is the only material available, the exposition should be more even-handed, with an equal level of detail and comparable information from both studies and with both positions being explicitly attributed rather than any one of them being presented as the truth. Of course, it is possible that the first study reflects the position predominating among researchers in the field and the second one is isolated, but if so, it should be possible to demonstrate that with more references. 62.73.72.3 (talk) 10:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
