Jump to content

Talk:Orca/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7


Learned Behaviour

"Two groups that share a common set of ancestors but have grown apart in distance are likely to have a similar set of call types, indicating that calls are a learned behavior." Surely this indicates the oposit that it is inherited behavior otherwise the related group that moved away would stat using the dialect of the new local. 70.150.94.194 (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Either can be the case, since similarities are either inherited or passed down through generations even after separation (like persistent traditions among ethnic communities many generations after immigration). The fact of similarity alone isn't enough to support either hypothesis. But you are right that "learned behavior" is vague here. More importantly, it is difficult to follow up on the data that support the statement without any sources, so I have tagged the entire "Vocalization" section with an {{Unreferenced}} tag. In fact, several large stretches of this article are unreferenced, which seems a little shoddy for an article with featured status. Maybe a reevaluation or a concerted citing effort is in order here. Best, Eliezg (talk) 22:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Attacks on Humans, attack on a boat

This article refers to the author of a book named "survive the savage sea" he reported his yacht as having been attacked, holed, sunk by a pod of killer whales. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Dougal_Robertson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.173.244 (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

article is inconsistent

One part at the top says that orcas ever eating other marine mammels. Towards the bottom it discusses orcas eating whales, seals, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 03:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Endangered Status

This sentence from the introduction doesn't seem to make sense to me: Although Orcas are an endangered species, some local populations are considered threatened or endangered due to pollution, depletion of prey species, conflicts with fishing activities and vessels, habitat loss, and whaling. Should it read Although orcas are not an endangered species... or does the second part need to be rewritten?--76.22.88.212 (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I was about to ask the same thing. Going by the conservation infobox, it looks like they are not endangered, so I'm assuming that you are correct, and the sentance should read "...are not and endangered species...". If no one objects, I'll fix it later tonight dcole (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

A Few Questions

Some stuff that I think would be interesting to have answered in the article: 1. What are the Orcas senses like? How much do they use vision/ hearing when hunting? Do they use a sense of smell? 2. Do Orcas sleep? 3. What is an Orca's bite like compared to a shark? It seems a shark can open it's mouth much wider. Cheers.Ben 2082 (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, your questions are excellent and should be added to the article. Foremost, Orcas do sleep (in a way). They use one half of their brain at a time, so that the other half of the brain can shut off and rest. This explains why Orcas are capable of swimming, surface resting, and respiring. According to numerous studies, Orcas lack a sense of smell. However, they consists of an impeccable sense of vision in and out of the water, due to their eye placement. Furthermore, they use echolocation to locate and discriminate objects, in which the various blowhole sounds can distinguish other Orca pods via their different dialects. Continually, Orcas are just like any other mammal when it comes to the touching sense. They can be ticklish, itchy, sunburnt, etc. Regrettably, I am unaware of any studies or direct observations regarding the Orca's taste sense. I presume they consists of taste buds and prefer certain types of prey, as well.SWF Trainer (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Cool, thanks for the info. So if they only use one half of the brain at a time, does this mean that they act differently when using each half? Sort of like how people can be left or right-brained and be creative or better at maths? Or are both halves more similar than in people? Interesting about the vision. I'm guessing it's not as good as sharks' vision in the dark? I mean, surely Orcas don't dive as deep? Actually be interesting to have some stuff about dive depth in the article, too. What about an Orca's bite? Why can't they open their mouths as wide as a Great White can? Thanks for your info man!Ben 2082 (talk) 01:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
You are welcome regarding the information! No, Orcas do not act differently when using one hemisphere of their brain compared to the other hemisphere. However, SeaWorld researchers are attempting to determine if Orcas consists of direction preferences based on innate or learned behaviors. Normally, Orcas swim in ocean depths of up to 200 feet. I am unsure of average shark dive depths. Shark and Orca eyes are rather similar to other vertebrate species. Thus, I cannot honestly answer your question concerning vision comparison and contrast between species. The reason why sharks can open their mouths wider than Orcas is because shark's jaws are not attached to the cranium whereas Orca's jaws are attached to the cranium. Furthermore, I am uncertain of the pounds per pressure on both the Orca and Shark bites. Due to protection laws and the fact that both species are rather dangerous within the wild, I am uncertain if that information is available on the web. Your questions are great and I am glad to have helped. I just wish that I could have answered some of your shark/orca comparison questions. SWF Trainer (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Appearance

I'm not sure if this would warrant a new section but I think there could be more in the article about Orcas' appearance. I mean, a pretty obvious question that is not answered in the article is: why do they have massive white eye patches on either side of their head? Presumably there's some evolutionary reason for this, although I'm not quite sure what. Also some stuff about how their coloration works as camouflage would be good, too! Ben 2082 (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


The colouration is likely to have two evolutionary reasons. One is sexual selection, Just like the extremely large male dorsal fins, or a peacocks tail, Orcas possibly found striking markings attractive and over time their markings became exagerated. The underbelly marking appear to point like an arrow to their genital region. Also, the makings are usefull in hunting as a form of distractive camouflage.They do not make the orca that hard to see, in fact the opposite but they do make it hard to know which way it is facing and thus harder to quickly anticipate its movements in an attack. The boldness of the orca markings may panic a prey and the confusion as to the creature's outline and direction of travel may make a prey be less effective in avoiding and escaping the predator.

GregOrca (talk) 01:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"Megafauna by continent" categories

Why is this article included in Category:Megafauna of Eurasia and Category:Megafauna of Africa, anyway? Orcas live in the oceans — they don't live on any continent, and do live around all of them. Would anyone object to just removing those categories? And how about Category:Cetaceans of Australia? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I would not object to removal. It seems strange to include ocean-dwelling cetaceans in the category for a continent. The only case where continental categories seems appropriate would be something like the Yangtze river dolphin which lived in freshwater rivers inland. I'd be curious about the intentions of the creator of the cetaceans of Australia category. Would he want us to have a category for Cetaceans of every continent and include most whales in all those categories? --JayHenry (talk) 00:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

in the picture with the orca jumping out of the water link "porpoising" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.238.9.202 (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Current Status

Have orca been reevaluated by IUCN in recent years as NT?Vnvnfls (talk) 05:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Good question. I don't know why someone changed the article from saying it was CD to NT. The best I can find [1] is that it is CD as of 1996. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 13:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Was CD removed as a classification in 2001?
Glad you asked! I've updated the article with the IUCN's 2008 update, which now lists the species as data deficient: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/full/15421/0 . This new information will need to be woven into the article as well. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect!

The name "Orca" (plural "Orcas")

Given that the term is Latin, the correct plural of orca would be orcae. Compare alga and algae. --76.203.23.23 (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Except that this is the English Wikipedia and not the Latin Wikipedia, and the plural of the English common name "orca" is "orcas". Rlendog (talk) 06:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
i did some searching and could not find orcae as a plural on any reputable site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.96.163.92 (talk) 09:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move Parsecboy (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Orca → Killer Whale — I am well aware of the previous discussions in Talk:Orca/Should the page be at Orca or Killer Whale. I am revisiting this for 2 reasons: 1) the most recent discussion was 2004 and since then Mammal articles now follow the naming conventions of MSW3, and 2) the most recent version of MSW3 was 2005 and it uses Killer Whale. The previous discussions decided on "Orca" mainly because it was the most used term, but MSW3 was not referenced once. Therefore, I am reopening this based on the current consensus to use MSW3 names. (Note: also alerting WP:MAMMAL & WP:CETA.) — Tombstone (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support: WP policy implies that the most common name should be used as the main article name, and in English I guess "killer whale" is the most common. And yes, of course it is a killer (predator), and the article intro clearly states that it is a kind of dolphin, not a real whale. Mondeo (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: MSW3 is the general standard for common names and there is no reason to make an exception here. Furthermore, "Killer Whale" appears to be the more common term within English and as used by biologists, as is conceded by papers suggesting the use of "Orca", e.g., [2]]. The only reasons I have seen for prefering the Latin "Orca" to the English "Killer Whale" are that:
the term "killer" has negative connotations - but, given that the animal clearly kills its prey, this is just POV, and
it is not really a "whale", but a dolphin - but technically all dolphins are whales, and no one seems to have a problem with other dolphins, such as pilot whales or Melon-headed Whales, having the term "whale" in their English common name.
A further problem with the term Orca, albeit one that may run afoul of WP:CRYSTAL to some extent, is that, as stated in the articles, there have recently been proposals to split the genus into several species. Although that hasn't happened yet, and may not, if that does happen, the term "Orca" will only be valid for one of those species, the one that remains Orcinus orca. The other Orcinus species will still be some form of "killer whale". Rlendog (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I regards to your example, while the term is used for a picture caption, the title of the article and the text of the article uses Orca, do you have any examples of the scientific lit (eg peer reviewed), which used Killer whale over Orca as the common name?--Kevmin (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I was actually referring to the section on naming down the page, rather than the caption. But Google Scholar shows numerous examples of "killer whale" being used as the common name. The first few: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Rlendog (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. It makes sense in general to use MSW3 names except when there is a very strong argument otherwise (as in Mahogany Glider, where the proposed "Ebony Glider" was almost unknown; Common Planigale, where "Pygmy Planigale" was incorrect as other planigales are smaller; and Grey-bellied Dunnart, where regional differences in spelling were maintained, i.e. "Grey" rather than "Gray"). The name "Killer Whale" is in common use, it is not incorrect as the species is undoubtedly both a killer and a whale, and there are no regional issues as the species is of worldwide distribution. Frickeg (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
What is the POV? Are you suggesting that there is some dispute over whether it actually kills its prey? Rlendog (talk) 06:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - When there is a False Killer Whale (Pseudorca) there could be also a Killer Whale (which is not POV at all but a term which is knowing since 19th century) --Melly42 (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose As a note Orca is used as the common name in the Puget Sound Region so its not just a matter of "vernacular" name vrs "scientific" name. Also while not definitive a search on google shows that Orca gets 9,810,000 hits, killer whale gets 2,470,000 hits and "Killer whale" gets 1,350,000 hits. Using google scholar to look at per reviewed papers- Orca 29,400; killer whale 17,600; and "killer whale" 6,620. Both show that Orca is used almost 4 times as much in regular websites and almost half again as much as killer whale (w/o quotes) in the scientific lit. It seems to make sense to leave the page at the term that is most used.--Kevmin (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Google results are heavily skewed by uses of the term "orca" to mean things other than the topic of this article. The scientific literature that I can recall primarily uses the term "killer whale". In the first page of a Google Scholar search for "orca" all the results that are about this species use the term "killer whale" as the primary English term. Furthermore, the way these animals are regarded in human cultures is more as whales than as dolphins. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose.Neutral (see below). Animal terms mean different things in different languages. As whales do not include dolphins by default (in contrast to other languages), it is confusing to call a dolphin whale, if there is no necessity. About "killer": All predators are killers, and there are other predator whales. Any interpretation of their hunting style is POV. --KnightMove (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you that "all predators are killers, and there are other predator whales", but I am not seeing where there is any "interpretation of their hunting style" that would represent a non-neutral POV. There is a common name, one which is accurate since I don't think anyone denies that they are predators and, as you state, "all predators are killers". There is no interpretation beyond that. Rlendog (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I jumped down to discussion section to reply - agreed, orcas are whales. So are dolphins, yet they are usually not referred to as whales. The killer whale name was given to orca when not much was known about them. As in 'killer tiger', the implication is that they kill humans, which is unreported for wild orca. On the other hand, I just looked at the Right Whale article, and if they're stuck with that name, orca may as well be killer whales. I'll change my oppose vote to abstain. Bob98133 (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I didn't know that "killer" implies killing humans. I assumed that "killer" simply means that it is a predator (as opposed to some big whales). In my language, Orca is simply called "fat munchers" because of their apatite for seal and other fat animals, previous also called "pole whales" because of the characteristic dorsal fin. In any case I don't think it is biased (POV) to use the name "killer whale", it is simply the common name. Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondeo (talk • contribs) 17:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the term implies that orcas kill humans. I believe that the origin of the name is a reversal of an older name "whale killer". Rlendog (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I was going to mention that the origin was "whale killer", but see you beat me to it. Prior to whaling, baleen whales, particularly whale tongues and other soft parts that could be torn off easily were a primary food source. --Aranae (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Bob98133: Currently, you contradict the article Whale, which states that the term does not include dolphins in English. --KnightMove (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Per the article Toothed whale, Killer Whales or Orcas are in fact toothed "whales". Rlendog (talk) 07:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, biological nomenclature does not always follow intuition and the logic of speech... a velvet ant is a wasp, while a wood wasp is not a wasp. Thus, it might well be that a dolphin is a toothed whale, but not whale. However, as the former article explicitly states dolphins to be whales, and the latter states they're not, there is currently a contradiction between those two articles to be fixed. --KnightMove (talk) 07:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

POV? I am a bit confused by the claims above that "killer" in "killer whale" is POV. Can somebody please make explicit the reasons. It is a predator and "killer whale" is the common name in English (and similar names exist in other languages). Regards, Mondeo (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

So do you think the species was named like this just for being a predator? --KnightMove (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know, I am simply confused about POV claims - why is the name POV? As far as I know it is a clever hunter, more so perhaps than the sharks. In my language it also has a less than flattering name. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
"It is derived from the name Basque whalers gave the species: ballena asesina—“whale killer”—an appropriate moniker for a predator that hunts and eats whales." [10]. As Rlendog and Aranae pointed out, it's nothing to do with it being a 'killer'. Even if this were the reason for its name, we should still follow naming conventions laid out by MSW3; your own examples show that even if the common name may not be entirely accurate, it is still used. Jack (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I guess opinions are formed about this, now it's a matter of interpretation. An additional point: Killer bees, killer ants or killer sharks all express a danger to humans. I don't think it's advisable to use a name capable of being misunderstood in this regard. --KnightMove (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The point I'm trying to put across is: by consensus of WikiProject Mammals, Mammal Species of the World (MSW3) is the taxonomic reference for mammal common names, the only reason to deviate from this text is "for newly discovered species or taxonomic revisions with significant scientific consensus", the reason for this is to "minimize inconsistencies and conflicts" in articles. Jack (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
If one truly wanted to minimize conflict then the articles would located at the scientific name and any and all common names would be redirects or disambiguation pages. The major thing to remember is the common vernacular names are NOT scientifically regulated and they boil down in most cases to the preferred region variation. The Puget Sound region uses Orca as the preferred common name, how does MSW3 decide what common name to use? --Kevmin (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems as though the book was originally started by the American Society of Mammalogists and published by Association of Systematics Collections, more recently it has received funding from the Smithsonian.[11] It has experts in each order of mammals who decide on the common names. Jack (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
How is it determined that "Orca" is the "preferred common name" in the Puget Sound region? Rlendog (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Using scientific names may work to minimize conflict for this article, but it would not necessarily work any better than common names in general. It certainly would not work for Sperm Whale, to use another toothed whale as an example. See the "catadon" section of the talk page if you want evidence. Rlendog (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

As the respective names for False Killer Whale and Pygmy Killer Whale are not established, thus there can't be an "orca-consistency", I change my vote to neutral. --KnightMove (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If you read the above conversation I've explained what MSW3 is. Cheers, Jack (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Seaworld usage

I think the fact that Seaworld uses "killer whale" [1] goes a long way towards establishing what the most commonly used name is. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


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

Requested move AGAIN

I have submitted a request at Wikipedia:Requested_moves to have this article moved back to Killer Whale. It seems to have been moved by someone unaware of the above discussion. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Article saved from deletion

random surfing brought me to a fascinating article, A30 matriline that was a short time from deletion. I managed to find at least one reference (and there appear to be more), so I quick ref'd it and posted a note on the talk page.

before I delve further into it, though, I would like to ask about precedent. Collaborative projects are great, but I would prefer to defer to the people who undertake certain subjects exclusively.

I will take the article under my wing if no one wants to, or I will leave it alone and let it die if people believe it should. let me know on A30 matriline discussion page.

Thanks, Vulture19 (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

killer whales

Do killer whales eat all kinds of things like fish;chidren;adults;animals;mammals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.32.12 (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Information?

So I did a number of searches for information pertaining to the claim that the Air Force bombed whales at Iceland's behest in the 1950s, but this seems suspiciously like an urban legend or just plain damn concocted. (I found the exact same phrasing on many websites, suggesting they'd all gotten this info from Wikipedia; nevertheless, I could find ZERO sources for this claim. I'd suggest deleting that section.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knockoutpoetry (talk • contribs) 16:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Moving "Killer Whale" to "Orca"

I think that the article should be named whichever name is used more often. I always call it an orca. Should it be moved or do most people call it a killer whale?--The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that it should be "orca." I typically hear marine biologists refer to them as such, as do marine biology-related or cetacean-related websites. "Killer whales, more properly known as orcas..." - http://www.wdcs.org/stop/captivity/story_details.php?select=72 "The orca, once also known as the killer whale..." - http://www.arkive.org/orca/orcinus-orca/ "The orca (formerly known as the killer whale)..." - http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=84 "The orca, or "killer," whale..." - http://www.npca.org/marine_and_coastal/marine_wildlife/orca.html

The World Wildlife Fund also refers to them as Orca.

Also for what it's worth, Googling "orca or killer whale" returns over 18,000 results while "killer whale or orca" returns less than 4,000. Zekiw (talk) 05:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for the rest of the USA or world but everyone in the Northwest calls them Orcas [12] there are plenty more news articles from out here that use Orca, but that may just be us --Gold Man60 Talk 00:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This debate has been worked over several times in the past (see the conveniently tinted archived box above). But to briefly address a few of the points made here: (a) the reason googling "orca" beats googling "killer whale" is that orce tags along almost all of the times "killer whale" comes up as part of the scientific name (Orcinus orca); (b) I am a marine ecologist based in the pacific northwest and, unlike "everyone in the Northwest", I do not generally refer to killer whales as orcas but would submit that whether I personally (or The High Fin Sperm Whale, or, even, the Seattle Times) refer to the killer whale as an orca or not is less relevant than, for example, the marine mammal scientific community ([13]), which itself cedes primacy to the MSW3, the usual reference according to Wikipedia conventions. Common names are inconsistent, geographically variable, and always evolving in time. When one is used to calling something one way more than another it can be disorienting (I will never, ever get used to seeing Murres under the name "Guillemot"), but, at least for now, there is strong support for sticking with Killer Whale. Best, Eliezg (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with retaining "Killer Whale", for the reasons Eliezg provides, and the reasons that were discussed a few months ago on this page. Rlendog (talk) 13:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Over time it seems calling the mammals "Killer Whales" is becoming increasingly less common whereas calling them "Orca" is becoming ever more widespread in all circles, both academically and colloquially. Sea-World calls them Orca, Wikipedia needs to follow suit. (Galdjie (talk) 08:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC))

What is your basis for saying that "over time it seems calling the mammals 'Killer Whales' is becoming increasingly less common whereas calling them 'Orca' is becoming ever more widespread in all circles, both academically and colloquially"? MSW3 uses "Killer Whale". Most scientific papers use "Killer Whale". And just because Sea World uses a particular term does not mean Wikipedia needs to follow suit. Rlendog (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • As with most things, NPOV would fairly resolve this once and for all; the name used in the title of MSW3's entry and virtually every reliable source. Failing that, I would be happy to see "giant killer dolphin" being used. cygnis insignis 21:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I consider the term 'Killer Whale' to be very misleading - it's not a whale, and it's not a considerable threat to humans, the 'killer' part also has many negative connotations. Conversely 'Orca' is more neutral, scientific, uncolloquial, and not misleading. Wikipedia should strive to provide accurate information; calling this species 'whales' is fundamentally incorrect. BodvarBjarki (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
"Orca" is more scientific only in the sense that it is part of the sceintific binomial name for the species (as long as it continues to be considered a single species). But Wikipedia uses common names for mammal species when available, and almost all scientific papers on the species that include a common name use the term "Killer Whale" as the common name. Rlendog (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
This has already been resolved. There was a clear consensus to keep the article at Killer Whale. It should not be moved unless there is reason to believe the consensus has changed. --JayHenry (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't we use proper formal terminology over commonfolk jargon? --96.48.80.74 (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

We do not use scientific names for animal articles when a valid common name is available. Rlendog (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Uncommon Names

The article lead mentions the less common names "blackfish" and "seawolf". The "1. Taxonomy and evolution / 1.1 Common names" section includes a bit of text on the blackfish name, but no references, and the seawolf name is not discussed there at all; neither name is mentioned elsewhere. Both of these less common names should be backed by references if they are to remain in the article. Can anyone help? --papageno (talk) 04:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Navy in Iceland, 1950s

I've removed this: "The operation was considered a great success at the time by fishermen and the Icelandic government. However, many were unconvinced that killer whales were responsible for the drop in fish stocks, blaming overfishing by humans instead. This debate has led to repeated studies of North Atlantic fish stocks, with neither side in the whaling debate giving ground since that time." It's a lot of (uncited) text for no clear conclusion. I'm trying to make the orca-human section more well-rounded, cutting some detail and adding more aspects to the story. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Details removed from Common Names section

I removed this sentence as it has been challenged for over a year and is not critically important: "The species is called Orca in most other European languages[citation needed], and, as there has been a steady increase in the amount of international research on the species, there has been a convergence in naming."

I also removed the following ever-growing list, as it's excessive detail that attracts more detail all the time: "The name of this species is similarly intimidating in many other languages, including Haida, Japanese and Chinese. In Afrikaans, Dutch, German, and Finnish the orca is called "sword whale" due to the shape of its dorsal fin. In Swedish, Danish and Norwegian , the orca is called "blubber snatcher", or "späckhuggare"[citation needed][1] " If anyone wants to copy these details to Wiktionary, I'm sure the Wiktionary community would be happy to have them. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 09:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. Rlendog (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.ne.se/sp%C3%A4ckhuggare
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Orca/Archive_4&oldid=1092721563"