| Revision as of 05:17, 29 January 2024 edit2600:6c58:7200:1dc2:90c8:1141:256f:c36a (talk) →Whale vs Dolphin: new sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic← 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 |
| (35 intermediate revisions by 23 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 29: |
Line 23: |
|
{{WikiProject Cascadia}} |
|
{{WikiProject Cascadia}} |
|
{{WikiProject Africa|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Africa|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Norway}} |
|
{{WikiProject Norway |importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Arctic|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Arctic|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Mammals|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Mammals|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Marine life|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Marine life|importance=Mid}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
⚫ |
{{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}} |
|
{{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 51: |
Line 51: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Orca "Killer" stereotype Pliny citation == |
|
== Surfer Bitten claim needs a source == |
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
|
|
|
|
== White Gladis orca should it be a whole page or mentioned? == |
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
Now CNN has picked up the story and name too. |
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
“That traumatised orca is the one that started this behaviour of physical contact with boats,” Dr Lopez Fernandez told ''Live Science.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
There are currently two relevant pages...] and ] |
|
|
|
: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? == |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: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) |
|
What I am most in favor of is the creation of an entire new page dedicated to White Gladis....i.e. White Gladis orca. |
|
|
|
::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 == |
|
Thoughts?] (]) 15:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
== Better wording for section of threats to humans in opening == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: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) |
|
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) |
|
|
|
::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 == |
|
:{{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. |
|
== Wolf should be linked to Sinonyx a carnivorous artiodactyl which was the ancestors of whales == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
"wolves of the sea" should be linked to Sinonyx a carnivorous artiodactyl (Mesonychid) also called "wolf on hoofs" ] (]) 10:27, 24 September 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) |
|
:That would not be appropriate for this article, nor for the place where "wolf" is mentioned. - ] ] 13:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::There is also the problem of how mesonychids are not artiodactyls to begin with.] (]) 20:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
::It is indeed an issue concerning certain smaller populations. ] (]) 08:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Whale vs Dolphin == |
|
== Longevity in captivity vs in the wild == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
Orcas are not whales. They are dolphins. Sailors used to call them whale killers because they would prey on big whales. This originated today as killer whales. ] (]) 05:17, 29 January 2024 (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.
