Talk:Orca/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Canucks

the C on the vancouver canucks jersey has to do with the fact that the team name is the vancouver CANUCKS. as such i am changing the script that it has something to do with "orcabay."

Naming

I notice that the following sentence has been recently removed as part of an edit

However political correctness has also played a role in the name change.

This is a important point. Why was it removed?

Pcb21| Pete 00:25, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ah, it looks like Neutrality made the edit in a "drive-by" spree of copyediting of lots of articles. I have done a partial rv. Pcb21| Pete 16:38, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ah, it appears that Neutrality has made the same change again, without feeling it necessary to explain why here. I'll re-do the rv. Pcb21| Pete 13:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And the same change for a third time, without comment in the summary, or here. I have reverted using the rollback button. As a side effect the change from "m" to "metres" also got reverted. I will endeavour to find out what correct policy on using this abbreviation is. Pcb21| Pete 07:06, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I like the abbreviation—that way, there is no American English/Commonwealth English bias. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 13:31, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine by me.

You asked on my talk page why I do not like the edits you describe as "npoving". The reason is that they are exactly the opposite! That the common name for the species has more or less changed to Orca is to do with internationalization of research, but more importantly it is because there is an element of rebranding involved. No-one in the field disagrees with this. I don't really understand why you want to create a distorted history of why the name has changed, but perhaps you don't know that much about the situation, and are simply changing the sentence because it reads like a strong statement to you? If this is the case, then I am happy to reassure you that the sentence is quite acceptable in an NPOV article. Pcb21| Pete 13:53, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I think the article as it stands now is good. Thanks. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 15:37, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Adding names in other languages

The comment section clearly states Please do not add more names in other languages unless they add something. For instance, the equivalents that we have listed so far are here because they show that the Orca has a fierce sounding name in many languages besides English. If you just want to add names, without worrying about relevance, please do so at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/orca instead. Thank you. so, if another user wants to just add names in another language, because they know or speak the language, they are encouraged to do so on the wiktionary. Adding the German word which means exactly the same thing as the Finnish name is not adding anything to the description. Since the Finnish word was in place first it gets preference. The comment (in the editing section) was placed after a consensus was apparently reached among writers in this article. But, I'm not going to get into an argument over it, was just trying to keep the article tidy. →ΣcoPhreek_Δ 17:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

In point of fact I am the original author of that comment. The consensus (flimsy though it was at the time) can be seen at Talk:Orca#Other Languages, below. When I wrote the text, my intention was to indicate that other names that reflected fierceness could be added to that paragraph (I phrased it broadly in case another linguistic trend came up in the future, for the next paragraph say), and I think Schwertwal definitely qualifies there. If we must keep only one, I would argue that the Finnish is more likely a calque on the German than vice versa.

You argue I could also add the Ducth, Russian, Chinese etc name, but this is a straw man: I agree that random names should not be added, but these are particularly bad examples: in Dutch it is apparently just called Orka, and Russian has already been removed from the page for reasons listed below. I cannot easily find the Chinese, but if it's written with the same Character as the Japanese this might be worth mentioning, I suppose. --Iustinus 00:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The Dutch name is Zwaardwalvis, which is simlar as the German and Finnish. It gets replaced by Orka over time. I am not very strong on inclusion /exclusion of names, as long as it happens with consistency. KimvdLinde 00:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, perhaps then we might want to have a general note about Germanic languages instead of listing individual ones? --Iustinus 01:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

We might want to generalize indeed. Finnish is however in the Finno-Ugric language family, which is not even close related to the germanic. And English (as a germanic language) is not using the english variant of Zwaardwalvis.... KimvdLinde 01:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes yes, obviously the phrasing would have to be done right. Something like "In many Germanic languages the name translates to 'sword-whale', e.g. German Schwertwal. This name has been calqued into Finnish as miekkavalas'." Someone may be able to phrase that better yet. This is of course assuming that we can find more than two Germanic languages that use this term, and that you (and other Wikipedians) would tolerate the inclusion of the Finnish word at all. This is very interesting, imho. --Iustinus 01:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, besides English, German and Dutch, only Frysian wold do. The Scandinavian languages are close, but in a different subgroup of languages (North Germanic). I think we have to keep the goal of the paragraph in sight, and that is to explain that the name in various languages has something fierce. So, a single example will do for each variant. IMHO. I will see if I can change the sentece such that it will do for that purpose.KimvdLinde 02:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why the subdivisions of the Germanic language family need come up. All I'm saying is that we can make a general statement about "Germanic languages" and give only one example. But to make such a general statement, we should probably make sure that more than two of them use the term! I see Limburger "zweerdwalvès" (and I bet we can find an attestation for shvertval(fish) in Yiddish if we try hard enough) but I'm not sure we should count languages that are that closely related to German & Dutch. Ideal would be an attestation in the North Germanic grouup, but everything I've seen so far uses that "blubber-chopper" name. However, what are the odds that Finnish calqued the name from German rather than a Scandinavian source? (Isn't it interesting, though, that miekkavalas is composed entirely of Germanic elements, yet uses a different root for "sword" than the Germanic languages use in this term?) --Iustinus 16:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm new and my vote doesn't really count but, I just feel that if the rules are going to be followed then they need to be followed for all entries, not just some entries. I understand that you are the original author of that comment, it was placed for a good reason, I may be misinterpreting that reason (not intentionally). If a person can put another name in now, then how, at a later date can it be stated "No, you can't put your name in it's too cluttered?" I like the way the article reads and flows, it is a very good article which is what drew me to it in the first place. I am proud of what little work on it I have done. I would not like it to become so ambiguous in the future that the information gets lost. For me it is an article on Orca: the species, not Orca: the names or origins thereof, the names section currently clarifies. The page at Wikt:Orc is great, how about putting a "See also" tag or a "For other translations" link in the naming section (instead of just in a comment that "normal" readers won't see} to direct readers to the page in question? If the Finnish is just a copy of the German word then I agree, the German should replace the Finnish one and it be added to the dictionary. I'm probably not getting my point across very well, and for that I apologiZe. Also I don't understand straw man, what is it? →ΣcoPhreek_Δ 01:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC) Moved comment to proper place in list, took me forever to get my words together and the above comments actually came first. Sorry. →ΣcoPhreek_Δ 01:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me clarify some things:

1. Of course your vote counts.
2. This is not a general rule. Similar guidelines are frequently used in other wikipedia entries, and I suppose you could argue that this falls under "What Wikipedia Is Not", but essentially this is just a rule we came up with for this article because the language listings were getting out of hand. (Or by "entry" did you mean the name in different languages? I assumed you meant it as a synonym for "article")
3. Of course everyone is equal on Wikipedia, so I cannot overrule KimvdLinde and yourself: we work on consensus. But since the guideline text that I wrote (and of which I have been the cheif enforcer) is being cited against me, I think it's fair for me to explain what my intentions were when I wrote it.
4. On that note, both you and KimvdLinde seem to think that I am somehow being inconsistant here. I don't think so at all! To my mind, any name which has a fierce meaning is allowable under this guideline. Other concerns do come into play though: as you mention we want the list to be compact and readable, so obviously we're not going to list every language in which the name means "swordwhale." But surely we should mention the fact that more than one language does this, and list at least one of these languages. To my mind, the ideal would be one Germanic language, plus Finnish, but if this is deemed too cluttered by the consensus of other users, I will of course back down (presuming we can come up with a nice compact phrasing that still gets the point across). And if you look at the length and detail of the article as a whole, I don't think that adding one sentence to this tiny little paragraph is going to be all that disruptive.

In conclusion, welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your thoughts! I hope I have addressed them adiquately. --Iustinus 16:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay :) Can we put in the link "Orca" in other languages to direct readers further? Then they can add there if they know more. →ΣcoPhreek_Δ 18:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

"Killer"

I came to the article via the discussion page. I have made some copyedits. On reading the article I noticed two sections:

No attack on a human by an Orca in the wild has ever been recorded. There have been isolated reports of captive Orca attacking their handlers at marine theme parks.

However there are many who prefer the original name on account of the fact that it is a good description of a species that does indeed kill many animals (just not humans [my stress]).

Later in the article it would appear that orcas have resulted in the documented death of one person, many fewer than can be attributed to domestic dogs. I think the second sentence could happily do with the removal of the part in brackets. I leave that up to those looking after this page.

Will do. Pcb21| Pete 20:02, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Other things I noticed:

From then they [?have?] periods of polyestrous cycling with non-cycling periods of between three and sixteen months.

Is it worth mentioning single births? Is there an incidence of multiple offspring births? --CloudSurfer 03:09, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not that my references tell me. Pcb21| Pete 20:02, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I seem to remember that a group of Orcas attacked a photographer during Robert Scott's Antarctic expedition. They slammed into the ice he was standing on, trying to knock him into the water, but the photographer got away with his life. I know this incident has been used as "proof" that orcas are vicious creatures. Shouldn't this count as an attack on a human? --Iceager 06:18, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It sounds like something an orca might do. I've read that orcas will surface or even partially beach themselves to scare penguins into the water, then attack them there. I can't find any good reference for that behavior at the moment, nor can I find a reference to Scott and an orca incident. Anyway, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, as they say, but I wouldn't count it until somebody comes up with a good source. HorsePunchKid 06:30, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

Actually the fact some members of the Scott party were "prowled" by killer whales is well-known. For a primary source see the excellent and still in print The Worst Journey in the World by Apsley Cherry-Gerrard. Also orca knocking seals off ice floes and then eating them has been extensively recorded in Patagonia (TV documentaries sometimes feature footage). However it is right to be a bit circumspect with quite what "prowled" means in this

The US Navy Diving Manual makes it clear that dive operations should cease and all divers leave the water if Orcas are present. Better to be safe than sorry I guess! --Liam Mason 02:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

I have brightened two of the pictures on the page. Hope you don't mind. Let me know if you think they are problematic as they now are. --CloudSurfer 19:40, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Looks good thanks. Pcb21| Pete 20:02, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wtf, are their pectoral fins always right up front under their chin like that? That looks wrong.. they should be further down the body..

It seems like animal pictures always go for the dramatic shots rather than the descriptive ones. Looking at those pictures, I would have very little idea about what an orca looks like if I had never seen one.

I have nothing against the pictures that are there, but in case someone wants to see the whole animal, I uploaded a jumping one here. If anyone wants to include it in the article as is or edit it, be my guest. It's released to public domain. Mlewan 17:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Polossatik?

This is probably a mistake. Polossatik is a Russian name for any of the rorqual whales. It means, unsurprisingly, "striped one". I guess somebody mistook 'rorqual' for 'Orca'. As for the alleged meaning in Aleut, this is probably condensed out of thin air. --i@k5 15:20, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

You may well be right that it is a mistake, however if it is, it is not a mistake of this article's author (me). The information is directly from

Orca: The Whale Called Killer, Erich Hoyt, Camden House Publishing, ISBN 0920656250. Should we junk it to be on the safe side? Pcb21| Pete 12:13, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think so. --i@k5 15:20, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally a Google search gives just four hits for "polossatik". All four talk about Orca. One can be ignored because it is a wikipedia clone. Another lists Hoyt's book as a reference. The other two... I don't know... maybe they could've used Hoyt too. The three non-wiki-clones all have copyright dates prior to the writing of this article, and so probably did not crib from this article. Pcb21| Pete 12:19, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Try 'polosatik' (single s). Most of the English hits are about Balaenopterae --i@k5 15:20, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the correct Russian spelling is полосатик. The term is (in a technical context, at least) only used ([1]) to refer to members of Balaenopteridae [2], as far as I can tell. These are baleen whales, which are not particularly closely related to the dolphins, orcas, and other toothed whales. I'll see if I can find the correct Russian term... HorsePunchKid 05:44, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Pcb21| Pete 18:16, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The correct term in Russian is касатка, according to the Oxford Unabridged Ru-En/En-Ru Dictionary. Somewhat confusingly, this also means "swallow" (the bird). I can't see any roots in the word that are in any way "fearsome", so perhaps it is not worth mentioning the Russian term. i@k5's information about the rorqual also appears to be correct, insofar as Russian is concerned. Aleutian I can't comment on with any authority, though I have to ech i@k5's doubts... HorsePunchKid 01:29, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

Hmmm, the fact that they named the cetacean after a small bird is indeed not terribly "fearsome", but the fact that they named the Kamov Ka-60 after the cetacean is interesting. This may or may not be judged worthy of being mentioned in the "naming" section, but I do think it's a worthy bit of trivia to include somewhere. --Iustinus 01:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, apparently, the K-456 submarine, though this doesn't seem to get an article of its own. See Oscar class submarine. --Iustinus 01:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Distribution

The article states that the orca "is the second-most widely distributed mammal on Earth (after humans)". I found that a bit surprising, thinking that honor belonged to Mus musculus (the house mouse), which lives nearly everywhere that humans do. But I'm no expert. Has anyone verified this statement? --Rick Sidwell 04:26, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think when you include the large swaths of ocean that orcas pass through, the total surface area of the earth in which one could possibly be found naturally is greater. I suspect the mouse you refer to is rather the most widespread mammal on land. HorsePunchKid 05:34, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

That's correct. Pcb21| Pete 18:16, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A distinction between surface area and gross population might also be useful here. --Iustinus 19:14, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There's no way Orca or humans are anywhere near top by population. Pcb21| Pete 22:39, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I had a problem with this statement, too. The statement must be talking about geography, not population (as Rattus rattus would attest). But if this is so, the orca would also beat the human, unless the author is making the strange claim that humans have the capability of building houseboats that sit in the middle of the ocean and therefore have the largest potential geographic distribution. Tempshill 19:14, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know the origin of the statement, but if it is taken seriously there has to be an underlying, clear definition of the term distribution. Humans cover the whole surface if you talk about any human position during the history of mankind. If distribution is limited to living area we are surely left behind of a number of species in the ocean. I think the statement of this reason is confusing and should be deleted. The key point it to describe the huge distribution area of killer whale, which is convincingly done without referring to human.
--Arnejohs 20:08, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Blimey what a fuss over nothing. It's pretty obvious what it must mean.... can species X survive at point Y in the world? Sum up over all points Y. Who has the biggest number... humans first, orca second. Pcb21| Pete 20:25, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, boats count. Pcb21| Pete 20:25, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it's a fuss over nothing, but then I disagree with your conclusion. You're proposing that a plain ol' area sum answers the question in the most "obvious" way. I believe that a sum weighted by probability more naturally answers the question and that the distribution winner would be different (orca instead of humans). Unfortunately, specifying that probability weighting is probably not trivial, and different methods would probably still lead to different answers. But the point is, what seems like an obvious interpretation to you was neither my first thought nor the conclusion I reach after thinking about it. I believe it would be sufficient to point out that orca are very widely distributed without making the (evidently!) debatable comparison to humans or other mammals. HorsePunchKid 20:55, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

And what about the blue whale and sperm whale? --chad 12:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization?

Why is Orca capitalized throughout this article? If it's the general name of the species, shouldn't it be lower-case? I don't go around saying that I own a pet Cat or that I go to the zoo to see Giraffes and Elephants... is there something special about Orcas, or can we just say orcas? - Brian Kendig 04:34, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I second this. I can't find anything online that supports the capitalization. If it isn't cleared up in the next day or so, I'm happy to go through and decapitalize it all. HorsePunchKid 05:28, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

I went ahead and took care of this. If lower case is good enough for ADW [3] (and every other source I found), it's good enough for me! HorsePunchKid 06:09, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

Please read the archives of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Tree of Life for literally hundreds of kilobytes of talk on this issue. Please don't just change one article making it out of step with hundreds of others. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Cetaceans for specific whale books that use capital letters for names of species. Pcb21| Pete 18:16, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Has some consensus been reached? I was surprised to see Tannin's recapitalization of all of the instances of "orca", as well as some of the other names. For what it's worth, if the only justification for capitals is to make it clear that you're referring to a certain species, I think it's pretty irrelevant in this case. Nobody is going to confuse "orca" with some other (non-mythical, non-fantastical) species... —HorsePunchKid→龜 June 29, 2005 20:54 (UTC)

Comment... well, half-withdrawn. I guess for the sake of getting on with our lives, the issue was already decided. Seems like a silly choice to me, but there are better things to worry about! :) —HorsePunchKid→龜 June 29, 2005 21:00 (UTC)

Frequency of songs

Heavy ship noise has caused some groups of orca to change the frequencies of their songs and calls.

What does frequency mean, here? Frequency as in pitch, or frequentness? If it is the former, I suggest it be changed into a link to frequency.

It means frequency as in pitch (i.e. has units of hertz). Pcb21| Pete 18:16, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

plural of orca

I've seen both 'orca' and 'orcas' used as the plural of 'orca'. Is this a sheep/sheep thingy or should it be orcas throughout? 145.97.223.187 14:14, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The plural is Orca. So like the sheep. Pcb21| Pete 18:16, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

MSN Encarta Dictionary claims that the plural is "orcas". [4] I was unable to find any other site which offered an authoritative opinion on this. - Brian Kendig 22:16, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've seen pictures where the fins hang flaccid over their backs, and I'm told that only happens in captivity. Can anyone corroborate it?

I think it is true to say that it is more common in captive Orca, but it doesn't happen only to them. I've seen several wild Orca with dorsal fins like that. Pcb21| Pete 22:30, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Possible plagiarism

http://www.penderisland.info/wildlife/orca.htm

Some of the paragraphs match this article's, and the site carries a copyright. I don't know who borrowed from who--Wikipedia from PenderIsland.info, or the other way around. Jonathan Grynspan 19:12, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The ones in common appear to be public domain photos from the NOAA. I am pretty confident that there are no copyright violations on any page in Category:Cetaceans. Pcb21| Pete 22:37, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was talking about the text, not the photos. Jonathan Grynspan 18:04, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes! I didn't read the text! Well I can confirm that it is them nicking from us and not the other way around. I wrote a good deal of this article myself, and its evolution through time can be checked using the "history" feature. Pcb21| Pete 19:37, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How many species of seabirds ?

The article states that at least 7 species of seabirds are eaten by orcas, including all penguins. According to the penguin article, however, there are up to 18 species of penguins (Spheniscidae) depending on which have full species status. In any case there seem to be at least 15. That would put the minimal number of seabirds eaten by Orcinus (including at least 1 species of cormorant) to 16.

Fixed. Nurg 08:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Other uses

The "orca" from Orlando Furioso is covered under orc. --Iustinus 01:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Looking at, for example, this translation, the beast in Orlando Furioso is called an "orc", not an "orca". For example, "The orc, that measureless sea-monster, hies / Which on abominable food is fed." Perhaps this point should be covered under "naming" instead of having the notice at the top (which still seems rather out of place to me). HorsePunchKid 03:19, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

The Italian word used is orca, although apparently at least one translator has used orc. RandomCritic 11:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Are there guidelines as to when the disambig line should appear on top and when it should appear as a "Other uses" section at the bottom (or some combination of both, like a top line like « See [[#Other uses]] »)? I'm rather partial to the first, as the casual user looking up the word (in this case, the monster's name in the original Italian) is not inclined to scroll all the way down to an eventual "Other uses" section.

As for being covered under orc, it also needs coverage here, not only because the word is Orca in the original, but also because Ariosto's monster is a sea-monster, unrelated to Tolkien's orc expect etymologically.

Urhixidur 14:39, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

I don't know of any guidelines, but for what it's worth, I'm quite content with the current (new) text. That extra bit of etymology makes all the difference! I also agree that the sea-dwelling nature of the orc[a] in Furioso makes it relevant to cover it here. HorsePunchKid 19:41, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

It was decided to remove the sea-monster material from orc, and fold it in here. RandomCritic and I have made the change. Feel free to edit further, as appropriate. --Iustinus 18:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Spanish

OK, 201.129.26.182 changed asesina ballena to asesina de ballenas. I'm inclined to think this is wrong. I assumed this was one of those Romance-language verb-noun compounds, like taille-crayon or chupa-cabras. This concept doesn't seem to be widely known by English speakers, and by the principle of lectio difficilior it seems more likely someone would falsely emend asesina ballena to asesina de ballenas than vice versa. Also, it seems unlikely that English speakers would mistakenly translate asesina de ballenas to "killer whale," as described in the article. Could someone who knows more about the history of this word please comment? I am loathe to make the change until I am certain. --Iustinus 18:23, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the history of orca naming, but I had to venture in here to see what was up with the spanish paragraph. It reads, in part:

...dubbed these creatures ballenas asesinas, or "whale killer" for this reason.

"Ballenas asesinas" translates directly to "killer whales". The change to "asesina de ballenas", which means "killer of whales" (f.) therefore seems appropriate.

However, this title was improperly translated into English as "killer whale". The term became so prevalent that Spanish speakers commonly used its retranslation of ballena asesina. This practice has further strengthened the case for using orca.

It should be a tip here that something is wrong because the "retranslation" of "ballena asesina" is simply the singular form of "ballenas asesinas".

--205.129.12.253 13:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Argh! Someone changed it again. The way it originally read, and the way I think is correct, the Spanish name was asesina ballenas, which would mean "whale-killer" in the same way that chupa cabras means "goat-sucker." --Iustinus 20:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

My vote goes to anything not containing "de", based on the similarity of Spanish and Portuguese, and the fact that it is "baleia assassina" in the latter: pt:Orca. - Samsara 01:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

And as a matter of common sense, if the term killer whale is used in Spanish, that is not a point in favour of using orca in English. Earlier in the same section, the use of orca in other languages is used as an argument in favour of orca in English too. -Townmouse 15:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Orca bit a surfer in 1972, and other human encounters with orcas.

Three anecdotes:

1) In 1972, off the coast of California, a surfer had his leg grabbed by a orca. The surfer punched the whale in the nose, and was let go. A doctor examined the leg, and confirmed the bite mark was from an orca. There was no major damage to the leg.

Yes there are several reports of orca having a pop at a human (apparently mistaking them for a seal) and then spitting them out rather quickly! Pcb21| Pete 07:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

2) There is no evidence to prove a story that orca attacked a fishing boat near Capetown, South Africa, and ate the four occupants.

This is extremely unlikely if only because if it were true, it would be well known. Pcb21| Pete 07:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

3) Many people scuba diving underwater, (such as Lloyd Bridges, according to his book "Mask and Flippers"), have seen orcas swimming nearby, but the orcas paid no attention to the people. In a tv documentary, Capt. Jacques-Yves Cousteau, and some other people, were scuba diving underwater; some orcas swam by to look at them, then they dove deep underwater. Then the orcas came swimming by Capt. Cousteau, and his partners, and the whales had sharks in their mouths! The whales then swam away to eat the sharks.204.80.61.10 14:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Indeed, people deliberately go snorkelling and scubaing near orca on a regular basis. Organised trips of this kind are organised, for example, from Tysfjord, Norway. Pcb21| Pete 07:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

If you can find sources for any attacks on people by wild orcas, please add them to the article, and change the claim that no such attack has ever been recorded. Townmouse 15:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: point 1) The Point Mugu Surfer, there is still a lot of doubt about that one, how many local Doctors do you know that can recognise a Killer whale bite ?... I have seen photographs of the guys leg ( and bite )and have my doubts as to it being a killer whale, the spacing is simply too close together - in addition, killer whale teeth are not that sharp, that guy´s leg was punctured / ripped in a number of places.

Re: point 3) Tysfjord, well, that is a situation that is an accident waiting to happen, I´ve seen a LOT of UW video from the area where you can clearly see killer whales adopting threat postures towards some snorkelers/divers - not all of the time of course, but often enough... one day, somebody is going to get creamed IMO...;o) Cheers G

Interesting, thanks G. Re Tysfjord - the UW video is filmed by people offering the trips. You get to buy the souvenir video on top of your whale-watch fee! If they ever stop offering the snorkelling option, we know why! Pcb21| Pete 11:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: UW Video, Hi Pete, Yes I know about Anthony´s UW videos- I´ve watched most of them ( in the unedited version ) over the last few years ;).. Scares the hell out of me sometimes too ..LOL... Will be just my luck, first time I don´t go there in 13 years and somebody will probably get eaten with lots of blood everywhere and I won´t be there to photograph it ;o) ... Cheers G (McC) ~(;o)

Other Languages

Someone has added a list of names for orca in other languages. Much as I enjoy polyglot lists, this doesn't seem like something that we will want to keep. The foreign names that were already enumerated in the Naming section were done with a specific point in mind: that in many languages the Orca has a fierce sounding name. Adding a complete list doesn't seem to add much. Well, actually, were I in charge of wikipedia I would love to have this kind of list in every article, but it seems to me that the consensus is that such things are more suited for wiktionary. Should we move it? --Iustinus 15:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree and have made the exact same case in the past multiple times. I did edit the new material to bring it up to par with the rest of the article in terms of formatting, but I am not particularly committed to keeping it. —HorsePunchKid→龜 19:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I did transfer it to Wikt:Orca, and added a note to editors not to add more names without a specific reason. --Iustinus 20:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Distribution further

it says the orca is the most distributed mammal after humans. What about the blue whale and sperm whale that are more distributed than humans? --chad 09:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think either of those are more distributed than humans. Pcb21 Pete 13:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, what I meant to say is that blue whales and sperm whales are more distributed than orcas. --chad 10:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Grampus?

It is my impression that grampus is a misnomer, since the dolphin given the Latin name grampus is a different one. It is my opinion that wikipedia should not propagate such confusion. -- Samsara 15:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

In the absence of disagreement, I've put in a sort of disambiguation note in the first paragraph. Please do discuss it if you disagree! - Samsara 01:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not knowledgeable enough to have an opinion one way or the other, but I added the species name and italicised the genus, as I believe is typographically standard. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-17 02:59:09Z

Good call! Thanks. - Samsara 03:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I have not been following the discussion until now. Your assertion was incorrect - it was not incorrectly called the Grampus - that was a genuine common name about one hundred years - fifty years ago. That a totally different species had a latin binomial name that began with same word is basically coincidental. I've undone your change. Pcb21 Pete 13:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

No, you've actually found a better solution for the problem I was trying to address. Thanks. - Samsara 14:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Releases from captivity ever successful?

I'm wondering, just out of interest, whether the kind of release suggested by the pressure group, as detailed in Orca#Captivity, has ever been successful. - Samsara 21:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Short answer? Never ... the only successful releases have been of orca that have only been held a short time in captivity - weeks rather than months/years. Despite throwing $30 to $40 Million into the project, Keiko´s release ( for example ) was a complete failure. SammytheSeal 11:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Finnish

I see (at wikt:orca) that the Finnish word for orca is miekkavalas. My Finnish ain't so good, so can someone who knows the language confirm or refute my suspicion that this means "sword-whale"? If that is indeed what it means, it would be a perfect candidate for the list of foreign terms in the naming section. --Iustinus 09:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Sword-whale it is.

Orcas of Eden, NSW

I suggest the addition of the remarkable history of the cooperation of orcas and human whalers at Eden, New South Wales in the 1920s. I don't know enough about it myself. Nurg 08:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Zane Grey wrote about this true story. It occured in a nearby cove called Two Fold Bay. There were a pack of orcas, led by bull named "Old Tom", who would help the humans on shore to kill the migrating whales and in return, the humans would give the orcas the dead whales lips and tongue to eat. The orcas figured out on how to work with humans on their own. They were not trained to do so. "Old Tom" died in his nineties and his skeleton is in a museum there. The whaling ended a long time ago, but, people still go there to see the whales. Bennett Turk

Should add this to the article. Is there a written source anywhere we can refer to? Pcb21 Pete 16:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

www references

www.batangabee.com/whales/orca.htm

www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/killers/whaling.html

Also, the book, "Killers of Eden: The Killer Whales of Twofold Bay" by Tom Mead, October 2002, 246 pages. I hope this helps. 24.92.55.166 02:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Bennett Turk

Many thanks Bennett. I have added the information to the article. Incidentally there a lots of reasons why creating an account is a good idea - not least because your privacy is better protected by not letting the whole world see your IP address. Take a look at Wikipedia:Why create an account? for more. Pcb21 Pete 08:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

orcas & dolphins

Are orcas dolphins?

Yes, because they are the Delphinidae family. Pcb21 Pete 16:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous references to orcas as "whales" in this article, which I'd like to change. I don't see the need for the term "killer whale", either. Wouldn't "orca" do for the entire article, as "killer whale" seems to be a fading and incorrect term? Lomaprieta 10:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with changing killer whale to orca over the entire article - many use the term killer whale in preference to orca, especially scientists/researchers working in the field - in addition, the name killer whale is an apt description / common name for a whale that kills very efficiently for the most part SammytheSeal 14:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Kind of amusing that the article says the use of both names leads to confusion... and then goes on to use both names, though, don't you think? What about instances of the word "whale" on its own, as orcas are not whales? Lomaprieta 21:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sort of ;O) - I remember an old saying " All dolphins are whales, but not all whales are dolphins " .... still holds true .. I personally doubt if anyone is going to get confused over the matter - if someone is going to be confused between orca or killer whale then I would say they have waaaay too much time on their hands ...:) I´d just leave it as it is and keep everbody happy..SammytheSeal 08:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Bad taxonomy makes me twitch, but that's not your problem. I'll leave it unless somehow a few more people come in and decide that this is a grievous error what needs to be corrected right this minute, or something. Thanks! Lomaprieta 10:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, as I'm going through the article, I also notice that some sections use American English and others use British English. Which is it? I'm leaving these alone, too, and just focusing on grammar, punctuation and readability right now. Lomaprieta 11:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Reference gone

Under Environmental threats... Press Telegram report on this population. Should the offsite ref still be listed? It no longer links to a page involving the pod. Just wondering. Ecophreek 00:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Added link to a site that does talk about this pod.Ecophreek 17:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well that's a good solution. Thanks Ecophreek. Pcb21 Pete 08:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the policy for external links?

Should the link go to the main page of a foriegn language website or to the english version page of said website? Ecophreek 18:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure there is a formal policy, but I think we should link directly to the English version. Pcb21 Pete 08:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)