Talk:Orca/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Photos

Requesting photo of orca(s) hunting sea lions Richard001 (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

First Paragraph

The first paragraph states that the Killer whale is commonly misidentified as a species of whale. Well, it is a whale so I'd like to delete that information unless anyone has any objections. Bremen (talk) 09:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's been done, and I've clarified a later instance of the same claim. The distinction between whales and dolphins is informal, not a taxonomic distinction, so I agree that it's not really correct to say that a killer whale isn't a whale. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I FIXED IT, but the first paragraph used to state that the killer whale has "few, if any, natural predators." the necessary correction is that the killer whale has precisely ZERO natural predators. sure, bull sperm whales could kill killer whales if they needed to, but there is a distinction between killing for defense or protection, and killing for sport or for prey. there is nothing on this planet that plans on hunting and/or killing killer whales as a regular part of its existence. hence, the correction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madbowler6 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Name

The line, "The killer whale (Orcinus orca), commonly referred to as the orca and, less commonly, blackfish" should in my opinion read, "The Orca (Orcinus orca), commonly referred to as the kilelr whale and, less commonly, blackfish" sine Orca is its real name. 69.123.13.152 (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Killer whale/Should the page be at Orca or Killer Whale for the last discussions on this general point. -- Avenue (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That is an entirely different issue. The opening paragraph of articles, frequently give the more correct name, where the artilce is titled by the more common name. For example the article Bill Clinton starts with the more correct William Jefferson, and puts "Bill" in quotes, as to signify it is not his legal name. I see no reason, not to use the more correct and more clear opening paragraph. RevDan (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Age of Old Tom

The age of the individual, Old Tom, is discussed in Old Tom (killer whale) and this article, the contradictions need resolving. cygnis insignis 05:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

They are making a bigger appearance in California too

This doesn't sound very encyclopedic, and the references used for verification doesn't verify the text used. They were first sighted in Monterey in 2000, and have been seen since, but we don't know that the frequency of their appearances. DigitalC (talk) 01:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it ("They are making a bigger presence in California too. " The article makes it clear that orcas are found all over the world, and mentioning the fact that a few dozen whales visit California is excessive detail. However, some of California's native orcas, the infamous "L.A. pod" (I'm not making this up) are pretty cool in and of themselves and are probably worth a mention. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 08:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Uncited paragraph

The following paragraph under Killer Whale#Distribution is completely uncited, and as such fails WP:V.

nformation for off-shore regions and tropical waters is more scarce, but widespread, if not frequent, sightings indicate that the killer whale can survive in most water temperatures. Sightings are rare in Indonesian and Philippine waters. No estimate for the total worldwide population exists. Local estimates include 70,000–80,000 in the Antarctic, 8,000 in the tropical Pacific (although tropical waters are not the killer whale's preferred environment, the sheer size of this area—19 million square kilometres—means there are thousands of killer whales), up to 2,000 off Japan, 1,500 off the cooler northeast Pacific and 1,500 off Norway. Adding very rough estimates for unsurveyed areas, the total population could be around 100,000.

Any help in tracking down some references for this would be appreciated. DigitalC (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The population figures have been revised, based mainly on the NMFS (2005) source, which I've cited accordingly. -- Avenue (talk) 13:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

"Data Deficient"

This is Belugaboy535136. My sister-in-law works for the IUCN, and she said that the status for the killer whale is "endangered," not "data deficient." So, I changed it. But somebody went and changed it back to the "data deficient" stage. If someone oculd please tell me who changed it, both the IUCN and I would be grateful. Regards, Belugaboy535136 Why don't you leave him a message? 15:29, 1 January 2010 (CST)

I changed it back, as you can see from the article history. I don't know why the IUCN would have any interest in that, however. As for why I changed it back, the status in the infobox has a reference pointing to the IUCN website, which continues to list the killer whale as "Data Deficient". If that has changed, please provide a recent reference that shows this. Per our policy on verifiability, merely hearing from you that you heard it from your sister is not sufficient. If you do have such a reference, I have no problem with changing the status line to match it. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The IUCN doesn't give resources, so says my sister-in-law. IUCN 3.2 is coming, she also said, and in 3.2 it lists it as "endangered." Belugaboy535136 Click here to leave him a message!! 17:48, 1 january 2010 (CST)

The article links to this IUCN page (that's the sort of thing I mean by a reference), which lists the killer whale's conservation status as "Data Deficient". If your sister is correct, and IUCN is about to release an update, and that update includes a change of conservation status for the killer whale, then once that happens we can change our article to reflect that change. We cannot change the article beforehand just because you say that your sister says that the conservation status will be changing. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Uncited material cut from article

I've cut the following challenged pieces:

• [Video of orca surprising kayakers] Regularly presented on TV news as a real attack and discussed by zoologists

• [Stingrays] seem to be their favorite treat as they will go to nearly any length to get them.

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Depiction in St. Mary's Church, Greifswald

The story about the picture of the orca in St. Mary's Church, Greifswald, is interesting. However I have a couple of concerns: - Does the sourcing meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Verifiability? Is there any other source that discusses the painting and/or the event? - The picture does not look like an orca. It looks more like a shark or a ray. I feel there's a need for better sourcing to really convince me that the artist intended this to be a picture of an orca. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've cited the church's website as a source. I'd suggest this satisfies WP:V regarding locals interpreting the event as a "sign from God", but probably doesn't qualify as confirmation that it was really an orca. I think the mural looks more like an orca in this view from the front. For comparison, Gessner's 1558 illustration doesn't seem strikingly realistic either.

Detail from Olaf Stor's Carta marina (1539).

I've moved the account down a little, as it doesn't seem to match the "Cultural significance" heading as well as other paragraphs. Would it fit in better after the Pliny quote, perhaps?

Another early depiction of orca, here attacking a whale, is in Olaf Stor's 1539 map. -- Avenue (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've condensed the story, as it's just one village's experience of one animal. The main reason it is worth mentioning at all is that it led to the first scientific description of the species, so I moved it to Taxonomy. I'm not sure if the picture from Griefswald is worth keeping. Does it represent a widespread style of depicting orcas? Or do we have sources indicating that this painting is particularly well-known outside Griefswald? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Good source: NMFS 2005

This source is really good. Top quality, recent, and in the public domain for guilt-free copying and pasting : "Conservation Plan for Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) " Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Input needed at Talk:Springer (orca)

Hi everyone,

We could really use some community input on the Springer (orca) article. This article was stable until about three weeks ago when a large amount of content that I consider problematic was added to it, by a contributor with a conflict of interest. That contributor has apparently stopped editing, however at present the COI content is mostly still there and we need to deal with it somehow. At question are: processes for dealing with content added with COI, whether to revert to a version of the article that existed before the COI content was added, reliability of sources, due weight, and style issues. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 08:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Further speciation studies

The BBC's website has just published a piece, here [1], about recent UK studies on differing 'types' of Killer whale in UK waters that may be of interest. The actual paper by Dr Andy Foote (!) and others has appeared in the journal Molecular Studies.87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Detail on resident social structure

To shorten the article and give it more geographic balance, I've cut the following unsourced content:

"Resident pods have up to 50 or more members, with an average of 15 in the Northern resident community in the Pacific Northwest. Occasionally, several pods join to form superpods, sometimes with more than 150 animals. Resident pods often include subpods, which comprises one daughter or cousin that sometimes travels only with her offspring and sometimes joins the rest of the pod."

"When Resident pods come together to travel as a clan, they greet each other by forming two parallel lines akin to a face-off before mingling with each other."

Might be useful if we create an article specifically on the killer whales of this region. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 08:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Pods

Is it the case that pods are just matrilines whose matriarch has died, splitting one larger matriline into several smaller ones?Lfstevens (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. The younger whales in a pod may never have belonged to the same matriline as each other, i.e. they were born after their most recent maternal ancestor died. When a matriarch dies, I assume her offspring would tend to stay with her pod rather than form a new one. This is from NMFS, p. 12 (public domain):

"Groups of related matrilines are known as pods. Matrilines within pods share a common maternal ancestor from the recent past, making them more closely related to one another than to those of other pods (Baird 2000, Ford et al. 2000). Pods are less cohesive than matrilines and member matrilines may travel apart for periods of weeks or months. Nonetheless, matrilines associate more often with others from their pod than with matrilines from other pods. Most pods are comprised of one to four matrilines, but one southern resident pod (L pod) holds 12 matrilines (Table 1). Resident pods contain two to 59 whales (Bigg et al. 1987, Ford et al. 2000, Ford 2002, Matkin et al. 2003; Center for Whale Research, unpubl. data). Gradual changes in pod structure and cohesion occur through time with the deaths and births of members, as seen after the death of one matriarchal female, which appeared to prompt the fragmentation of her matriline (Ford et al. 2000). Such changes in association patterns caused some observers to believe that L pod was comprised of three smaller pods during the 1980s (Hoelzel 1993). Within pods, some researchers recognize the existence of an intermediate type of association known as the subpod, which is defined as a grouping of matrilines that spends more than 95% of their time together (Baird 2000)."

It's complicated :) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Intelligence

From 1968 to 1971, the US Navy attempted to train two males (Ahab and Ishmael) captured in Washington State and kept at NUC Hawaii in fenced sea pens. They were trained for "open ocean reliability", but on February 17, 1971, Ishmael did not return when called and was never seen again. Ahab died in 1974

• Is this information really important to be included in an article on Killer Whales?
• Does this information really add to the section on intelligence?
• Should more recent, scientifically published information be on the intelligence be added to this section (ie - is this a priority?) DigitalC (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it looks funny to me too. Research in the past 40 years has yielded much more interesting insights into the intelligence of the species than this story. I think the section should be rewritten. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. It could possibly be beefed up more. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ref. improve

"Ford et al. 2000" is referenced 5 times in the article. Only the year and one author are indicated. Can we get some more information on this reference, and possibly get a convenience link? DigitalC (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It is an abbreviation of this item from the "General references" section:

Ford, John K.B., Ellis, Graeme M. and Balcomb, Kenneth C. (2000). Killer Whales, Second Edition. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press. ISBN 0-7748-0800-4.

I'm not sure what a convenience link is. Is this one: http://books.google.ca/books?id=yTmbu_CFomAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=ISBN+0774808004&source=bl&ots=c-vca2Afnz&sig=--aYbOuU30gjXq9nTomuHR-WLAs&hl=en&ei=S9FTS8z2A478sQOVzaj6Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false  ? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sentence case

As discussed in Wikipedia:Featured article review/Killer Whale/archive1 and in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cetaceans #Capitalisation, this article should use sentence case ("killer whale") rather than title case ("Killer Whale") when discussing killer whales. Eubulides (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think changing to sentence case would improve the flow of the article and make it look more normal. Thanks for starting a discussion here. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Essentially everything I have read about killer whales uses sentence case. I think the article title should likewise be changed to "Killer whale". -- Avenue (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Another nod of agreement here. While certain books may use title case, an overwhelming majority of the scholarly literature uses sentence case. The text of the article should be changed, and the article should be moved to Killer whale. DigitalC (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep. My reason is below in the "Requested move" section, but duplicating it here since these are linked issues. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page moved.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Killer Whale → Killer whale — As discussed above and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cetaceans, the sentence-case form is used overwhelmingly more often in the relevant literature; Wikipedia should align itself with this literature. Ucucha 13:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone volunteer to change the case in the article as well? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I attempted to start doing so, but was reverted. DigitalC (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

By me, yes. My opinion is that usage in the article should be consistent with the page title, especially if a requested move on the very issue is under way at the same time, but if there is a consensus that this is not an issue, so be it. Ucucha 18:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That is fine with me, there is no rush. DigitalC (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Consider me another volunteer, assuming we reach a consensus to change the title. -- Avenue (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I support moving this to Killer whale. Common names are just that, common names, and should be presumed to be properly written in lowercase unless there's a reason not to. The most common reason not to (that the common name contains a proper noun) doesn't apply here. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support move: overwhelming majority of scientific literature (as evidence by a google scholar search) uses "killer whale", not "Killer Whale". DigitalC (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support per the above arguments. Best to go with the most common use in the literature.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support per above. -- Avenue (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support seems right, on consideration. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 01:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is a broader issue than just Killer Whale. I think all cetaceans and nearly all mammals use capitals in this way. If this is to be changed it should be done in the context of a broader discussion and a broad consensus within WP:MAMMAL, not on a one-off basis for a particular article here and there. Rlendog (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The relevant WikiProject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Cetaceans, is on the verge of moving to a sentence case standard (see the discussion on its talk page). This is intended as a bit of a testcase for that--if this move goes forward, it'll likely mean that cetaceans will all be moving to sentence case. Ucucha 17:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree with Ucucha. Also, local consensus amongst the people who've worked on a particular article overrides project consensus anyway, e.g. Sea otter. The last time I participated in a capitalization discussion at WP:MAMMAL, which was probably three capitalization discussions ago, there was agreement that consistency across all mammals articles is not critical. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support as per discussion on the Wikiproject Cetaceans page. --Swift (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Weak Support I have some general concern with the number of moves related to capitalization that have started to reappear. I am a weak support on the basis of MOS:Animals, plants and other organism. MOS:CAPS notes and recognizes that this has been a topic of great debate (just look at the number of times its come up at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)), where as WP:CAPS notes that organism generally do not have each word capitalized, unless proper nouns appear (with the noted exception of birds). I should note that I believe this is an issue out of the realm of only WikiProject Cetaceans, so I don't take a consensus there to be appropriate argument, given there is an obvious precedents effect in terms of naming within the community as a whole. If this is going to become an ongoing issue it should be resolved at a central location (WP:TOL, WP:NAME or MOS:CAPS) and any consensus incorporated into the relevant mos pages and naming conventions. --Labattblueboy (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support especially considering that "Killer whale" is in line with our broader policies on article naming.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 09:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

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

I believe I corrected all occurrences of title case to sentence case (except in quotes and references), but another check may be good. Ucucha 20:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I only found a couple more. I think that's all of them. -- Avenue (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

General references section

Should this section not be pared down, and re-title to "Suggested reading"? Should it include any references that we already use to verify facts in the article? 14 additional references seems a little excessive to me. DigitalC (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't like Wikipedia suggesting anything. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 01:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be trimmed and maybe split into two sections. I'd rather that only the material that is referenced by footnote references be kept in the "General references" section. We could have a section called "Further reading" that includes some well-chosen items. Non-English items that are not referenced by a footnote should probably be removed altogether. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

References pruned down

I've removed the following items from the General references section, as they are either highly specific or only peripherally relevant to killer whales, and are not used as inline references:

• Shevchenko, I.V. "Kharakter vzaimootnoshenii kasatok i drugikh kitoobraznykh'" in Morskie mlekopitayushchie (in Russian, transliterations vary). "The nature of interrelationships between Killer Whales and Other Cetaceans", 1975, pp. 173–175. The author describes his discovery of Orca cannibalism.
• Menoščikov, G. A.: "Popular Conceptions, Religious Beliefs and Rites of the Asiatic Eskimoes". Published in Diószegi, Vilmos and Hoppál, Mihály: Folk Beliefs and Shamanistic Traditions in Siberia. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 1968, 1996.
• Reeves, Stewart and Clapham and Powell, Alfred A. Knopf. 2002. National Audubon Society Guide to Marine Mammals of the World ISBN 0-375-41141-0.
• Ridgway, Sam H. (1998). Handbook Of Marine Mammals Volume 6: The second book of dolphins and the porpoises. Academic Press. ISBN 0125885067. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Klinowska, Margaret (1991). The IUCN Red Data Book: Dolphins, Porpoises, and Whales of the World. IUCN. ISBN 2880329361.

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 08:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ref check - Ford et al. (2000)

The following text is currently sourced to Ford et al. (2000). I checked using googlebooks, and could not verify the information. It certainly mentions matrilines, but does not seem to mention anything about them being the most stable of any animal species. If someone has another source, or could find this information in this source and provide a quote, that would be appreciated.

...some populations are composed of matrilineal family groups which are the most stable of any animal species

DigitalC (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There's something very close on page 12.[2] The relevant sentence there is "Some populations are made up of kin groups that are the most stable of any species, marine or terrestrial." Nothing there about "matrilineal", but it does support the "most stable" part of our claim. The "matrilineal" part is covered later, on pages 23-25. -- Avenue (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Orc

I've removed this: " The term orc (or its variant ork) has been used to describe a large fish, whale or sea-monster. It is now considered an obsolete synonym for Orca."

I did Google Web, Scholar, and Book searches for "orc orca" without quotes and could not find anything of importance to this article. The first sentence is true, but it's trivia. I don't know if the second sentence is true, but it's also trivia. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Things left to do for the FAR

The article has come a long way since the FAR began, and thanks to everyone who has helped! It looks like we're nearly there. The main things are:

1. Expand section on whaling. The FAR comments suggest a source. Can someone volunteer for this?
2. A few more inline references needed. I should be able to do most of these as I have plenty of books.
3. Expand section on intelligence. This isn't mentioned in the FAR but as discussed in a section of this talk page, I think it needs to be done. Can anyone volunteer to give this a start? It's really interesting and should be fun to write.

Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 09:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll start on the whaling section. We also need to improve the alt text for several images. I'm about halfway through this. -- Avenue (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Whaling looks solid. Good. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think the alt text is now good enough. I have also reordered and expanded the whaling section somewhat. -- Avenue (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I've looked for references to confirm mothers using baby talk, but so far I've drawn a blank. At least I've got all the external links working again. -- Avenue (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Sign me up to do both. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I've commented out the uncited bits about vocal learning, until we have a source. -- Avenue (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a bit different, but might be worth working in: Foote et al (2006., Killer whales are capable of vocal learning, Biology Letters, doi:10.1098/rsbl.2006.0525. -- Avenue (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

4. There's also more to do for Wikipedia's most glamorous job: adding detail to existing references. Come on, you know you're aching to do it. Or OK, how about we each do two or three? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've made a start. Does anyone have a copy of Ford et al (2000) handy? There are six references to this without page numbers. There are also two to Carwardine (2001). -- Avenue (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup. I've done all eight. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Spanish etymology

Is the Spanish etymology under "Common names" well-sourced? I was trying to determine whether to revert this edit, but the Spanish names are not in the weblink given (ref. 9) and apparently not (Google Books preview and search) in the Baird 2002 book (ref. 10). Ucucha 22:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not well sourced, and I have not found an alternative source that has demonstrably not copied it from this Wikipedia article. I'll remove this passage until a good source can be found. -- Avenue (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Spelling

Is this supposed to be in UK or US Eng? Currently it contains both, which is odd in a FA. --John (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Good question. The version that became featured in 2004 gives measurements in metres and kilometres, but also talks about specialized feeding techniques. So it seems the inconsistency has been here for a long time.

I suppose we should pick one variety and stick with it. I suggest Canadian English, for two reasons: the article's main editor is based there (see number of edits by username, and User:Clayoquot/About), and the most intensively studied killer whales live off the BC coast. -- Avenue (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I would feel honoured by that. Thanks for the suggestion! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 09:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll start standardizing on that in a few days if noone objects. -- Avenue (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I've finished this, but I'm not a native speaker of CanE and I may have missed something. I was unsure about the double l in travelling; some sources say it's optional, but another said it was required, so I went with it. Feel free to change it back if that's wrong. -- Avenue (talk) 08:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Error in citing reference

The section "Relationship with humans", subsection "Whaling" contains the statement:

"Whalers more often considered them a nuisance, however, as they would gather to scavenge meat from the whalers' catch.[107] Some populations of killer whales, such as that off Newfoundland and Labrador, may have been reduced significantly by whalers shooting them in retaliation.[15]"

I checked the reference and the location given as "Newfoundland and Labrador" should be Prince William Sound, Alaska. I tried to fix it but the article seems to be locked for editing by someone with my level of access.

Can someone with the appropriate permissions please fix this? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.33.135 (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, well spotted. I've corrected it. -- Avenue (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Origin of name

I've removed this from the "Common names" section: "There is also the fact that some members of the species have killed people (although such killings have occurred only when the whales are in captivity, not in the wild)." Although this is true to the best of our knowledge, it has nothing to do with how the killer whale got its common name. The name was in widespread use long before captive killer whales started killing people. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 09:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Dawn Brancheau

As has been in the news, the SeaWorld trainer Dawn Brancheau was killed by a killer whale. However, under the "Killer stereotype", it still says "...none of which have been fatal." Could someone look into this? Yangosplat222 (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That sentence only talks about attacks by wild killer whales. Attacks by captive killer whales (including Tilikum, Brancheau's killer, are covered in the "Captivity" section below. -- Avenue (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added a mention to the "Killer stereotype" section as it's relevant there too. Clayoquot (talk | contribs)

Although some media have said that Brancheau was "attacked" or "killed" by Tilikum it would be more accurate to say that she died in an accident. There's no evidence the orca was in any way aggressive towards her. It sounds more like play behavior. Large animals do not realize that their play can be fatal to humans. Several years ago I attended a talk by Brancheau's supervisor. One of his points was that the natural play behavior of orcas, which trainers shape into entertainment routines, can be dangerous or fatal for people who are not constantly vigilant and able to anticipate the animal's next move. Brancheau apparently dropped her vigilance for one instant in twenty years. I've also seen Tilikum perform. His sole contribution to the show is to race around the pool at high speed, splashing water on the closer seats. I doubt he is trying to get anyone wet. This is a normal behavior for orcas. They do it in the wild for apparent amusement and also to round up fish in a cluster which is easier to prey on. I work with a 2000 pound draft horse. He has no desire to harm me but if I am not careful I could easily be squashed against a wall. Occasionally when I am working on his front feet he will grab my hat and drop it on the ground. He will repeat this as often as I put it back on. This doesn't mean he is trying to eat me and it is not an attack. tldoran —Preceding undated comment added 23:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC).

We should re-evaluate the terminology. I don't have time to do it tonight, but we should take a closer look at what the mainstream sources say and use the terms that best reflect reliable sources. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 08:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the lead to say "killing or injuring" instead of "attack". The section on captivity already gives both the point of view that the incidents were deliberate attacks and the point of view that the incidents were playful accidents. There are many mainstream news sources that use the word "attack",[3] so I think it is reasonable to use the term in this article, as the "Killer stereotype" section currently does. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I added a CNN link to the fatal injury statement because the existing link didn't actually describe a fatal one. The text hasn't changed. Eudemis (talk) 04:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Bottlenose dolphins

I've removed this: "Bottlenose Dolphins are only rarely hunted by certain types of killer whales; conversely, some killer whales befriend dolphins." The first part of the sentence is probably not worth mentioning at all, as the article should focus on what the main prey species are instead of what they aren't. The part about "befriending" dolphins probably needs to be reworded. The better sources, and most of this article, generally state what has been directly observed, and are cautious about ascribing complex motives such as friendship. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this removal. I too am not sure what "befriending" means in this context. Does it mean cooperative hunting? Joining a group of bottlenose dolphins in transit? Just not eating them? I never found any comments about killer whales befriending bottlenose dolphins when I was working on the latter article. The closest I am aware of, but still not worth mentioning in the article, is that killer whales may be sometimes kept with dolphins in dolphin shows (for example, the Vancouver Aquarium used to keep a killer whale with a Pacific white-sided dolphin) but that hardly implies "friendship". Rlendog (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Twins

Both this page and the general Whale page previously specified single offspring only. Because of this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heG3lM0CdgM I have added "usually", but ideally someone with more time would expand upon this and find scientific sources. I don't have any reason to doubt the authenticity of the video though. Salopian (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Good edit. Makes sense to me. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Noticed that the text on the YouTube video cited above is almost verbatim to the Wikipedia text regarding the various Antarctic populations. Which borrowed from which? Does it matter? Tldoran (talk) 03:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The description in the YouTube video was copied from Wikipedia. Technically, whoever put the text on YouTube is in violation of copyright, but as the person who wrote most of the text in question, I don't have a problem with it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived 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.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Killer whale → Orca —

• 76.116.110.213 (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Firstly, orcas are dolphins, not whales. Secondly, their reputation as "killers" is entirely undeserved. 76.116.110.213 (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. While the points are valid, they are trumped by "killer whale" being the more-commonly-used name in the English language. WP:COMMONNAME points toward "killer whale" being the more appropriate name for the article. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 02:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:UCN 76.66.194.32 (talk) 04:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose So many of the references for the article refer to "killer whale". The points that you have raised are not enough reason for a move. Put your points in the article if they are of importance. -- S Masters (talk) 05:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Interpretation of guidelines can back either name, neither is NPOV, and there is a simple way to neutralise this interminable 'debate'. The valid name is the one given in all reliable sources, Orcinus orca Linnaeus, 1758— cygnis insignis 09:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

  "neither is NPOV" - why? What "point of view" is espoused by calling something an orca? Knepflerle (talk) 12:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Although as a general we do use the common name, we sometimes avoid it if it is unduly problematic, orca is not uncommon in ordinary usage. PatGallacher (talk) 09:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: killer whale is far more common. English is full of illogical names - slow-worms, silverfish and koala bears spring immediately to mind - but we explain the inaccuracy in the text, not in the title. We have to let our readers find the page first and foremost, hence the weight placed on choosing something recognisable. Knepflerle (talk) 12:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Killer whale does appear to be the most common name with Orca a little behind. As far as using Orcinus orca as the article name because "all reliable sources" use that name, not all reliable sources use it exclusively. In a quick look I found one that uses Killer Whale first with (Orcinus orca) after it. So it is not an exclusive use by reliable sources. The original nominator says that the name should be changed because they are dolphins not whales, the common name has nothing to do with the scientific classification. The original nominator also claims that their reputation as killers is entirely undeserved, this is not true, they kill prey for food on a regular basis. They might not kill humans on a regular basis or ever (different discussion) but they do kill on a regular basis. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 14:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Killer whale is the more common name. Aiken ♫ 16:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support I don't really see killer whale being more common, seems like plenty of the sources use Orca. The very unscientific Google search method gives 7.2 million results for Orca and 2.9 million results for killer whale, and 2.4 million for "killer whale." I don't really see that as a deciding factor, but I think most people are aware of both names, and so we should then default to the more scientifically accurate one. Eldaran (talk) 00:46, 2 April 2010 (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.

article split

Should we start a new article that gets into details of the different Killer Whale communities/cultures? 24.180.173.157 (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

There are a few of these already in Category:Killer whales, and they could use expansion. We still need to have a general article on killer whales. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

New source - transients are separate species

Could be incorporated into the article. DigitalC (talk) 03:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

http://www.timescolonist.com/technology/Unique+population+killer+whales+identified+coast/2944775/story.html

Thanks for the heads up. Here's the original paper: doi:10.1101/gr.102954.109. Does anyone have free access? It seems to be getting some news coverage, so we should be able to pick up the main points anyway, but it'd be nice to check them against the original source too. --Avenue (talk) 05:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a great story. This source describes the story more completely: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/science/27whale.html?ref=global-home . I'll see if I can get my hands on the original article in Genome Research. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at this site it looks like there is a lot of evidence for there being three distinct species. If you want copies of the papers it also lists people who would be happy to email you a pdf. 131.111.30.21 (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Life cycle

"Female killer whales become mature at around age 15. Then they have periods of polyestrous cycling with non-cycling periods of between 3 and 16 months. The gestation period varies from 15 to 18 months. Mothers calve, with usually a single offspring, about once every 5 years. In resident pods, birth occurs at any time of year, although winter is the most popular. Mortality is extremely high during the first six months of life, when 37–50% of all calves die.[43] Calves start being weaned at about 12 months and are fully weaned by the age of two years. According to observations in several regions, all male and female killer whale pod members participate in the care of the young.[44] Females breed until age 40, meaning that on average they raise five offspring."

I think the number of raised calves needs some re-calculation. When giving birth every 5 years from age 15 to 40, they will have about 6 offspring on average. But given the mortality rate of the youngest calves, I would say they only RAISE 2-3 young on average.

By the way, is there any data on sex ratio? A 50/50 rate would mean depleted populations need an extremely long time to recover. Scarabaeoid (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Nobody got any info on the above? Seems rather important to me in respect to conservation efforts, all the more since there are apparently multiple species, implying the number of specimen per specie is only part of the already reduced total population of Orcinus. Scarabaeoid (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

In start contrast to invertebrates and reptiles, the sex ratio in mammals (presumably including killer whales) is extremely stable, rarely more extreme than 40-60 (see the review here). But the sex ratio is not a particularly important parameter for determining rates of population recovery, at least not compared to reproductive rates, generation time and rearing success. Eliezg (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

In that case an avarage female killer whale raises no more that at most 1,5 young females during her fertile years. Her average age at giving birth being 27,5 years, this means that the population can only double about every 50 years in undisturbed conditions. That is much slower than most other high profile threatened mammals like polar bears, tigers, rhinoceroses and giant pandas. Shouldn't that be in the article somewhere? Scarabaeoid (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

killer whale abundance request

{{editsemiprotected}} Please replace this text;

"The killer whale is particularly highly concentrated in the northeast Pacific Ocean, from Alaska to Washington, and the coasts of Iceland, northern Norway and Antarctica. They are also numerous, to a lesser extent, around central California, Argentina, New Zealand and the Crozet Islands."

with this;

"The regions where Killer whales are most highly concentrated are the North Atlantic (Norway, Iceland and Scotland in the east, the Canadian Arctic in the West), the North Pacific (Alaska to Oregon in the east, Russia in the west) the Southern Ocean around Antarctica and some areas north of it."

link to source 24.180.173.157 (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Why? I'm sorry, but I don't see the suggested change as an improvement. It introduces little new information, and fails to convey the important distinction between areas of greater and lesser abundance which is covered in our existing text. Perhaps the sourcing of our current text should be improved, although this is covered in detail later in that section. --Avenue (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I came up with a list of places and the document to back it up. Isn't that better? Do you have an better source that shows that are relativity common in New Zealand, ect? You also failed to explain how this text "fails to convey the important distinction between areas of greater and lesser abundance" more than the next. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Your version lists places where killer whales are "highly concentrated", without distinguishing between any of these places. The previous version at least divided its list into areas where they are "particularly highly concentrated" and "numerous, to a lesser extent". I agree the previous version could have been sourced better, although I saw it partly as a summary of the sourced information further down. Your source will be useful in making progress; for instance, it gives an estimate of the abundance of killer whales around New Zealand. --Avenue (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I stared to implement this change since a sourced claim is better than an unsourced claim, regardless of the quality of the prose. Since Avenue objects, we should reach a consensus before making the change. However, unless sources are found for the current text, it would be difficult to generate a consensus for retaining it. Celestra (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it? Why do we need consensus to replace a confirmed statement with an unconfirmed one. The source for the new text shows what areas actually are places where orcas are numerous. So whats the controversy? 24.180.173.157 (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Everything in Wikipedia is done by consensus. If you are making changes by yourself and no one objects, you have an assumed consensus. As soon as someone objects, that assumption becomes invalid and some discussion is required to form a new consensus. Your text provides less information and is a little awkward, especially around the ending, but it is sourced. The existing text is written nicely and includes details about less populated regions, but is unsourced. Celestra (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My concerns were that the proposed replacement is generally not as informative and I think not entirely accurate. Much of the existing text is also effectively sourced, two paragraphs down. So I didn't see the replacement as an improvement. But I'm not saying the current text is perfect either, and on reflection, either would do as a starting point for further work. So I'll put your proposed version in, but don't expect it to remain untouched for long. --Avenue (talk) 21:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It appears I made a little mistake. Scotland shouldn't be listed. The number 0.29 on the map refers to Iceland and the Faroe Islands. The graphs confirms it and they that are rare around Scotland. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Scotland was the main part that rang off-key to me. Thanks for confirming this. I can see why you were misled; the map (Figure 12.2 in your source) is very easy to misinterpret in places. It would be better to work from the corresponding table (Table 12.2) instead. I think we should try to summarise its contents in our article, including their distinctions between different levels of abundance. --Avenue (talk) 02:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay then, could you please replace Scotland with the Faroe Islands? 24.180.173.157 (talk) 01:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the list to only include areas where the cited source says killer whales are "abundant". This removes not just Scotland, but also much of the North Atlantic and Pacific. I think the next step is to add a list of all the areas where it says they are "common". --Avenue (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, go for it. I think you should have it state something like this; "Orcas are also numerous, to a lesser extant, in the Canadian Artic, off Russia, Iceland the Faroe Islands and from Southeast Alaska to Oregon". 24.180.173.157 (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

From memory, I think that misses a couple of spots in the southern hemisphere. I'll check tomorrow. --Avenue (talk) 04:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

More on abundances

Hello, I made some revisions to the habitat and range section, drawing largely on the synthesis of global abundances in Fornay and Wade (2007) and references therein before noticing that there was a discussion on the topic here. Sorry. I hope they are acceptable and accurately reflect the fact that there are certain locations with reliable density estimates (NE Atlantic, N. Pacific on the US side, Australia) but also many locations where they are a common species with, however, no reliable estimates (NW Pacific, pasts of S. Atlantic, Indian and P. Oceans).

Also, I also added a citation tag to the "white whale" bit - because, well, there is no citation, but also because the statement: "in the northern Bering Sea and around St. Lawrence Island, and near the Russian coast" is silly: St. Lawrence Island is IN the northern Bering sea, both are "near the Russian coast", and "the Russian coast" includes an unimaginably large swath of seas and oceans that do not feature white killer whales.

In general, I would suggest that these (and other) sections of this article seem to rely more heavily on popular or media sources than on the peer-reviewed literature. The Fornay article is a wonderful review of the scientific studies if further details on densities and abundances are necessary. Best, Eliezg (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Good job but you forgot to put in the Southest Alaska to Oregon region as a spot where Orcas are common. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 17:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Eliezg (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrong place though, the abundance of orcas in the BC/Washington/Oregon region is more comparable to Russia, Iceland and the other places you put rather than the Antarctic, Aleutian Islands and Norway. The latter are on a greater scale which is way they are mentioned first. 174.124.210.15 (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I did some more revisions, going into more detail about what is known about the relative abundances. - Eliezg (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Habitat

The "Orcinus Orca Range" image on the page indicates the Baltic Sea as about the only part of the world seas where Orcas supposedly _cannot_ be found. Yet, the section right next to the image claims "Konrad Gessner wrote the first scientific description of a killer whale in his "Fish book" of 1558, based on examination of a dead stranded animal in the Bay of Greifswald that had attracted a great deal of local interest."

The Bay of Greifswald is in the Baltic Sea. So how do these two statements go together? Clearly, if the first animal was found in the Baltic Sea, that's an indication that they _do_ live there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.120.12 (talk) 11:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments on structure of article

Looking over this article (and being in the mood for giving some unsolicited advice) it seems like there are some fairly significant structural problems. For example,

• the "Range and habitat" section is strangely sandwiched between "Life cycle" and "Feeding" ... both of which should be subsets of "Behavior", which comes even later. I would suggest first having the (1) "Physical description", then (2) "Behavior" - including feeding and reproduction and life cycle and social behaviors - and then the (3) "Range and habitat" (though it should really be called "Populations and distribution" or "Abundance and range"), (see, e.g. Sea otter or Lion).
• The "Taxonomy and Evolution" section, which is very prominent and quite long, seems to go overly into detail about the Resident/Transient/Offshore distinctions, which is a pretty regionally specific distinction (to the northeastern Pacific). Besides, is it useful "encyclopedic" knowledge that back in 1988 someone named Jim told some guys named Mike and Graeme that he saw once saw KW's while blablabla-blablabla? It seems like that whole discussion could be tucked away - in a tightened form - somewhere else (possibly in the "Populations and distribution", or oven in a "Feeding/Diet" section), and touched upon more lightly in a section that should be more of a global overview.
• the "Common names" subsection doesn't really fit into a "Taxonomy and Evolution" rubric at all.

In short, for an otherwise well-referenced featured article with lots of information and a ton of readers, this one seems to be structured in a confusing/inconsistent way. I am hesitant to make wholesale changes myself without some discussion with other editors. Best, Eliezg (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree; I say the distrubutions should be more detail with subsections for each regions and their populations (like the Fin whale and Blue whale articles have). 24.180.173.157 (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Latin name

Hi everyone, I've removed the following statement: "while orca (in use since antiquity) means "pot" or "jar" perhaps a reference to the whale's bulk." Although it is true that the word in Latin means pot or jar, I do not know of a reliable source saying that the animal's name derives from this meaning. It could be just coincidence. Sometimes words with different origins end up with similar or identical spellings, e.g. the word "wind" in English means "moving air" and "to turn coils." Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Nomenclature

I'm a noob, so please be gentle. I've read the rules, and hope I understand them.

"Killer Whale" is a 19th Century pejorative term for this species.

Perhaps revising the title of this article to "Orca", and referencing that it is also commonly known as the "Killer Whale" would be more in line with current scientific discussions? "Killer Whale" would then be replaced by "Orca" where found elsewhere in the text.

Thanks for your consideration.

Kdjfigjfksk (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The more common usage is killer whale and that is what we use as the de facto generally.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

"More common" by what measure? A simple Google of "killer whale" returns 1,090,000 results, but only 852,000 where "Orca" does not appear as well. "Orca" plus "whale" or "dolphin" or "mammal" (to filter out the acronyms/brand names/etc.) returns 2,290,000 results. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

More common usage in the English language. The term orca is also a 19th century creation..according to Merriam's the first usage is 1866. I disagree on your google results. My return from Google for "killer whale" is 1,470,000 while "orca + mammal" yields 457,000, "orca + whale" yields 1,270,000 (higher numbers due to the occurrence of killer whale) . Interestingly, on the latter, the page titles mostly start "Killer whale" even when that wasn't the search term. I'm using google unfiltered (i.e. Safe Search is off) but after switching to a moderate safe search, the results that I stated are still basically correct with very little change in the outcome.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that your search criteria is wrong. Putting "killer whale" in the top-level Google search does indeed return 1,480,000 result, but that incluides occurances of "killer" and "whale" separately on the same page, not necessarily the two words actually together as "killer whale." Nick Cooper (talk) 10:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Using quotes around killer whale yields 1,200,000.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Fatal attacks on humans or not?

"There have been very few confirmed attacks on humans by killer whales, none of which has been fatal." -- from Relationship with humans -- "Killer" stereotype

"Unlike wild killer whales, captives have attacked and even killed people,[107] such as their handlers or pool intruders with nearly two dozen attacks since the 1970s.[108]" -- from Relationship with humans -- Captivity

These don't add up. There are no mentions of fatalities to humans in the two cited articles in the second quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.74.129.194 (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I have changed the first statement to restrict it to wild killer whales, which I think makes more sense in that context, and cited a source that supports this. I agree the point about fatal attacks by captive killer whales is not backed up by the previously cited sources. I've added two sources that do. -- Avenue (talk) 09:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

If the events unfolding in Orlando change, I trust this will updated to reflect otherwise? 74.103.47.166 (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see anything here that really needs to change, regardless of what investigations of the current Orlando incident discover. It is just another fatal incident involving a captive orca, and we already acknowledge they occur. (Orca attacks on humans will need updating, though.) Can you be more explicit about what concerns you? -- Avenue (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This is important: the surfer who was knocked off his board was not bitten, simply knocked off. A wild orca has never physically attakced a human. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nat365 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Any wild animal that would attack a sea lion would certainly attack a similar or smaller sized human. Obviously humans are not normally in the position to be attacked by a wild orca whale,so it would be fairly uncommon for one to be killed by one. But I wouldn't throw my newborn baby in the ocean near a school of killer whales, they can and likely will attack it. 68.188.25.170 (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

There an article Orca attacks on humans that relates to this question. I spent some time trying to track down a reference in a supposed "Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery" claiming to document an attack yet despite exhaustive searches in two journals with that name, could not find the article. Jason Quinn (talk) 07:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Ruffles and J Pod

Individual J1 (Ruffles) is specifically mentioned and has his age documented in the article. What about his mother (and the matriarch of J-Pod), J2, also known as Granny? Some estimates have placed her age around 90 years (she is mentioned on the list of long-living organisms page). The Seattle Aquarium has information on her and the rest of J Pod, as well as K and L pods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.199.139 (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Killer Whale vs Orca

We all know that "Killer Whale" is the most common term but increasingly I have see "Orca" being used more so in various media.

There seems to be a recommendation by, I dunno, "Scientists", "The Power That Be" or "[Insert Name Here]" asking people to use Orca instead of Killer Whale when naming the animal, since "Killer Whale" is giving or has been giving the animal a bad reputation for being known as a "Killer", simply because they eat various kinds of large animals and play with them beforehand; although I'm not entirely sure. To be fair however, the animal is NOT a "Killer" but simply a carnivore similar to any other carnivore in the world. YES, the animal was given its Killer Whale name upon discovery/whatever or atleast that's what we call it now but does that make it right to keep calling it that? As in the similar case of a Starfish, we know it's called that but certain people prefer we call it a "Sea Star" because technically, it's not a fish at all.

SO folks, I wonder, what should the article's title be? "Most Common Name" or "What We Should Be Calling It"?

If it is changed to Orca and more people refer to it as an Orca, then a whole new generation of people might grow up using the name and to them it will be the most common name, which in turn would make the "Give Animals Good Names" organization (yes, its fake lol) alot happier! AnimatedZebra (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Those who view the name as derogatory may be barking up the wrong tree. Amongst whales, this one is a killer and it garners respect for it.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME. DigitalC (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I see, good point! AnimatedZebra (talk) 07:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Orca means "demon from hell" so It probably wouldn't make the situation any better that way.

Minor point about gulls

"discovered that it could regurgitate fish onto the surface, attracting sea gulls." "Sea gulls" would be a poetic or colloquial term, 'gulls' would be the scientific term. -rudyard (talk) 06:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 84.13.12.205, 9 August 2011

Add: A common name historically used for the orca is Grampus

89.240.209.195 (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Topher385 (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

This archaic common name is already covered (and sourced) at the end of the Common names section. --Avenue (talk) 03:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.108.32.132, 15 August 2011

Under the heading of Range and Habitat, there is an error in the second a paragraph. It states that "Systematic surveys indicate the highest densities of killer whales (>0.40 individuals per km²) in the northeast Atlantic around the Norwegian coast, in the north Pacific along the Aleutian Islands, the Gulf of Alaska and in the Southern Ocean off much of the coast of Antarctica.[60]" The statistic should be >0.40 individuals per 100km2. The source confirms this.

24.108.32.132 (talk) 03:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for finding this error. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 04:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Killer Whale right term ?

Who decided to call this article about Orcas "Killer Whale". Thats sounds like in Kindergarden. Why not call the article about dogs "woof-woof" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.19.216 (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussions on this issue started way back in 2002. See Talk:Killer whale/Should the page be at Orca or Killer Whale (which is linked to near the top of this page). --Avenue (talk) 01:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

And unlike calling a dog a "woof-woof", killer whale actually is another name for an orca. I prefer the term orca, but the name killer whale is used in books and scientific papers. --T H F S W (T · C · E) 17:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Killer whale is the common name used for the orca but in no way is it the name of the species. Orca is the dolphin's scientific name, thus for correctness of the article, the title should be Orca, not Killer whale.

The scientific name of the species is Orcinus orca, not just Orca. A case could be made to use scientific names rather than common names for Wikipedia animal species, but consensus to date has been to use common names. Rlendog (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Killer whales are not actually whales, in fact, they are in the dolphin family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.124.218 (talk) 06:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

How is it anything like calling the dog article "woof-woof". Calling this article "various clicking and chirping sounds" would be like that. Killer whale is a widely used name for the animal, and not just amongst young kids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 (talk) 01:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, the better comparson in regards to this move would be moving dog to Canis lupus familiaris (the scientific name for the species and mot woof-woof. Even if that was the standard the original dog argument would still not be valid since the name Killer Whale is was not based on a sound the animal made.--70.24.211.105 (talk) 02:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Orca is the term Scientists are trying to make the common term as they are not Whales, but dolphins. Most modern books and scientific articles refer to them by the term "Orca". Go to any major US aquarium and ask someone who has a degree in Marine Biology what the correct term is and they will tell you "Orca". Also this site use the "Orca" and says "or killer whale". Ananegg (talk) 01:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Dolphins are whales in case you didn't know. And here is one of the largest US Aquariums calling it Killer Whale. This high-level authority calls it Killer Whale, too.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I can tell you that in the Pacific Northwest (where these things are concentrated) they are definitely called orcas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LRT24 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can tell you there are way more in the Antarctic, where they are often called killer whales (Pitman et al. 2003, Three forms of killer whales; Smith et al. 1981, Coordinated behavior of killer whales; Visser et al. 2008, Antarctic peninsula killer whales (Orcinus orca) hunt seals and a penguin on floating ice, etc). SaberToothedWhale (talk) 04:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, because there's an Antarctic variety of English we should be applying here. LRT24 (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

This wouldn't be such a recurring issue if people thought logically, and had the correct facts, rather than spouting emotionally driven responses. Fact is, Killer Whale is the older and more established term, "Orcinus orca" is the scientific term, and "Orca" is a more recent term, who's usage is largely driven by the desire to promote certain agendas due to the fact the "killer" part of "Killer Whale" might be seen to stigmatise or create unnecessary fear towards the animal. Most profession discussion of the animal still uses the term "Killer Whale", "Orca" is primarily used in modern popular culture, by activists and the tourist industry. Using the scientific name of "Orcinus orca" is out, because that's not how Wikipedia policy stands on titles at present (otherwise "Dog" would have to be renamed "Canis lupus familiaris" as someone pointed out earlier. For now "Killer Whale" is the obviously most appropriate choice for the article, as it's still the most widely used name (although maybe declining), and the name overwhelmingly used by the scientific community. At some point in the future "Orca" may be more appropriate IF it overtakes "Killer Whale" in popularity AND becomes the dominant term used by professionals. --85.211.142.177 (talk) 03:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh and it doesn't matter whether or not it's actually a whale or not (technically, it is anyway) - it's not Wikipedia's role to reword names to be more technically accurate. For instance, you wouldn't replace the title of the Great White Shark article because technically it's not white, but rather a grey colour. --85.211.142.177 (talk) 03:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Dolphins are a family of toothed whales, so there is nothing incorrect about using the term "whale" in the killer whale's name anyway. Rlendog (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

And "orca" won't even be the correct scientific name for all killer whales if, as is likely, current efforts to study the genus Orsinus result in it being split into multiple species. Rlendog (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Fossil Range

I added yesterday the fossil range to the taxobox without providing any references because in the article Killer whale/Taxonomy and evolution there is info about this subject: The killer whale is one of 35 species in the oceanic dolphin family, which first appeared about 11 million years ago. The killer whale lineage probably branched off shortly thereafter. Since it branched off shortly thereafter I thought one can say that this species appeared about 11 million years ago.--NNeilAlieNN (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The statement says that the oceanic dolphin family appeared 11 million years ago, not the killer whale. Furthermore, saying that the killer whale, Orcinus orca, appeared in the fossil record 11 million years ago contradicts the article about a fossil species, Orcinus citoniensis, which lived 2 million years ago. In other words, no, you can't say that O. orca appeared in the fossil record, as you weren't reading the article clearly.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I might be wrong; But - as i mentioned previously - it also states that The killer whale lineage probably branched off SHORTLY thereafter. Furthermore the fact that an orca subspecies lived 2 million years ago doesn't mean that no other orca subspecies existed before this. Just like the earliest fossils of great white sharks are about 16 million years old, while other sharks date from more than 420 million years ago. This is not a contradiction. You could say so if we knew that Orcinus citoniensis was the first Orca subspecies. --NNeilAlieNN (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

First off, O. orca and O. citoniensis are two different species, not subspecies. Secondly, the article is about O. orca, so, stating that the species, has a 16 million year old fossil presence when the source statement is referring to the genus is synthesis and original research--Mr Fink (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Article locked but English is bad

"on even large sharks.' ought to be "even on large sharks." You can't split the preposition "on" from its object (large sharks) with an adverb. Gobbledygook StevinSimon (talk) 06:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This has been resolved now.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, the sentence structure is terrible here:

In February of 2010 a 40-year-old SeaWorld Trainer named Dawn Brancheau was killed by a 12,300-lb male[153] killer whale named Tillikum. The fatal event occurred after a show called "Dine with Shamu" at SeaWorld's Shamu Stadium in Orlando, Florida. The Orange County sheriff's spokesman Jim Solomons stated that Dawn Brancheau fell and slipped into the 35-foot-deep tank where she was endured a deadly injury by one of the killer whales.[164] However, other witnesses maintain that Dawn Brancheau was violently grabbed and attacked by the killer whale. A woman, who attended the show at SeaWorld prior to the death of the trainer, named Lori Miller spoke on "Larry King Live" about the trainers were having a hard time getting the killer whales to perform.[164] Captives occasionally act aggressively towards themselves, their tankmates, or humans, which critics say is a result of stress.[145] A spokesperson for PETA commented on this incident and referred to it as "a tragedy that didn't have to happen."[164] Prior to the death of trainer Dawn Brancheau two other trainers were involved in incidents with killer whales at SeaWorld. In 1999, a 27-year-old man snuck into the park after closing and his body was later discovered floating on his back in Tillikum's tank.[164] Another SeaWorld trainer was seriously injured during a show at the Shamu Stadium after being grabbed by a killer whale and held underwater in 2006.[164] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reginahalliwell (talk • contribs) 04:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed the wording a bit, this is indeed a poor choice of words. Thanks! --TeaDrinker (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Messed up sentence

"PETA claims the 13th amendment technically does not state that it solely applies to nonhuman animals."

This should be it does not state that it solely applies to humans.--50.28.171.146 (talk) 02:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Dukes

Currently, the article says "In 1999, a 27-year-old man sneaked into the park after closing, and his body was later discovered on Tilikum's back. The man was later found to have died from hypothermia. A preliminary examination of the man's body found no bite marks or other wounds" within the captivity section. The reference (165: [4]) says nothing about the man's injuries. Furthermore, Dukes was said to have visible injuries and puncture wounds. Articles and books such as this [5] state such. I would normally be bold and make the change, but would like to give someone a chance to provide a credible reference that he was uninjured. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Whale, dolphin or both, and this talk page

The presentation on this talk page of the archived discussion of the whale/dolphin issue (see [6]) as "resolution: dolphin" badly misrepresents that discussion. There was no consensus. There was an argument lasting 25 hours between just 2 editors, with the second editor putting in a last word 10 weeks after the fact and further revising their opinion 1 year later ([7]). The first editor was questioning the assertion that Orcinus orca is not a whale, but seemed to accept that it could also be a dolphin, and remained unconvinced by the second editor that it is not a whale. The second editor's final statement held that "Killer Whale is a dolphin and thus a toothed whale, but its not a whale". By this reasoning, sperm whales (also toothed whales) are not whales, and nor are pilot whales (also in the dolphin family) whales.

List of cetaceans states that "Six of the larger species in the Delphinidae, the killer whale (orca) and its relatives, are commonly called whales, rather than dolphins". This position makes sense. Smaller cetaceans are commonly called dolphins or porpoises. Larger cetaceans are commonly called whales. As the largest member of the dolphin family, O. orca is commonly called a whale. It's an abuse of the common name dolphin to try and force it to correspond precisely with all members of the biological family Delphinidae; some are dolphins, some are whales.

I see little evidence of the O. orca "is a dolphin and not a whale" argument in the article at this time (although it has appeared in the past), but this argument was used a couple times in the most recent move discussion [8] to justify moving the page to orca. O. orca "is not a whale" is a widespread factoid on the web (16k google results for "killer whales are not whales", 5k for "killer whales are actually dolphins"). This factoid also appears for pilot whales, but is less widespread.

I'd like to revisit the supposed consensus on this issue, and assuming that others agree that O. orca can be both a dolphin (or a member of the dolphin family) and a whale at the same time, put in some discussion of the "not whales" factoid and why it is misleading.Plantdrew (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Size Comparison

From what I understand, killer whales vary greatly in size depending on where they live. Moreover, I've seen photos of adult stranded killer whales that aren't nearly as large as depicted in the size comparison. --Webbie1234 (talk) 08:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 March 2013 - Re Killer whales and menopause

Killer and pilot whales are the only nonhuman species in which the females are known to go through menopause and live for decades after they have finished breeding.[67]

Killer and pilot whales are some of the few nonhuman species, along with elephants, in which the females are known to go through menopause and live for decades after they have finished breeding.[67] — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobynLCoburn (talk • contribs) 10 March 2013  HueSatLum 22:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The source in the article says, Other long-lived animals keep producing offspring throughout their lives - female elephants do it into their 60s..., but I'm not sure if that is the same. The source you gave above says, In the case of female [elephants], they experience a long post-reproductive phase which is similar to human menopause. HueSatLum 22:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I have closed this edit request as the above comment indicates there is no consensus for this edit as requested. Per WP:EDITREQ the {{edit semi-protected}} tag is not to be used where a controversial edit has no consensus. Feel free to continue this discussion to work towards consensus. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Type D

Not sure if this should be on the page or not, but National Geographic says that the Type D killer whales may qualify as a new species. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/06/130627-killer-whale-orca-new-species-animal-science/ 130.85.58.236 (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 October 2013

At the end of the first line under the subheading "Types" please add:

"although large variation in the ecological distinctiveness of different killer whale groups complicate simple differentiation into types. Pjndebruyn (talk) 23:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done by Apokryltaros — Reatlas (talk) 09:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

better graphics

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/killerwhale.htm

This page has better detailed range maps and better pictures of the various types. It would be good if someone could look into using these for the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.89.230 (talk) 01:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Can we cease referring to these animals "Killer" since they are not a threat to humans?

Consensus cannot override WP:COMMONNAME because WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

It seems strange that we call these animals "killer" since they only kill other animals for food. Perhaps human should be called "killer ape" since we are an apex predator as well. The only deaths associated with these animals have been while they were in captivity and under the care of humans. I welcome any discussion on this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.143.221 (talk) 06:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC) agree, see under common names: According to some authors, the name killer whale would be a mistranslation of the 18th century Spanish name asesina ballenas which means literally whale killer.[16] Basque whalers would have given it such name after observing pods of orcas hunting their own prey. I think we should invert the situation - so that the title of the article is Orca, and the popular name killer whale is in the text as an AKA. --Megustalastrufas (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC) This page is a feature article so it will require a more senior member to make the changes.Skrivitor (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC) I don't know about seniority, but I think we would need to allow for extensive discussion first, as we did last time the name was changed. See Talk:Killer whale/Should the page be at Orca or Killer Whale. --Avenue (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Thanks Avenue, I didn't see that conversation. It seems like calling the creature a "killer" insinuates a certain level of ferocity that simply does not exist, even if it is a cultural norm to use the term. Orca are currently used for entertainment and profit by a variety of organizations world wide and in addition, their natural habitat is being destroyed by human activity; changing the name to Orca would be one way we could give them an advantage in public opinion. Use of the term "Killer" may skew an individuals view of the creature and cause them to pass a negative value judgement. In the 2009 naming survey, Orca was Supported 10-6 Skrivitor (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC) Activism is prohibited on Wikipedia. See WP:ACTIVISM. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC) I grew up in an area with large populations of orcas (as in, they regularly played in the wake of the ferry boat that connected our island to the mainland). Everyone called them orcas. It baffles me that anyone would call them "killer whales." After reading the old discussion, I don't understand why the title of the page was changed to "killer whale." Please change it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.96.150.19 (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC) You are not allowed to use Wikipedia to attempt to influence public perception of Killer Whales. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Agreed, Wikipedia is not the place for activism. Otherwise, should we change the name of "Gorillas" because the word "gorilla" is derived from an ancient Greek legend of monster-women, too? I mean, if we intend to steer away from "insulting" names, then why should we use "orca," given as how it's derived from an ancient word for "sea monster," instead of "killer whale"?--Mr Fink (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC) On the other hand, "orca" saves on word count. CMD (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC) I apologize to all users for having used Activism-like language in support of changing the article from Killer Whale to Orca. It is my opinion that the term Orca is more neutral than the term Killer Whale. It is my belief that the term Orca is more commonly used among my social and geographic cultural group. If it is necessary, I will not object to this discussion being removed from the talk page.Skrivitor (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC) This discussion is missing the fact that anything on wikipedia influences public perception. By your logic there can be nothing on wikipedia. No matter if we call it Killer Whale or Orca we'll still be influencing public perception. It's just a matter of which way people will influence it. It seems clear from people like Mr Fink deleting my earlier comments that this talk page is not a space for genuine discussion on this matter. --Chrissy9876 (talk) 02:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC) I deleted your comment because talkpages are not the place to accuse other users of engaging in an alleged conspiracy to oppress "orcas" by calling them "killer whales."--Mr Fink (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC) You are correct in that this talk page is not the place to take issue with Wikipedia’s policy against activism. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC) Why is the article called "Killer Whale"? I understand that WP has a policy on common names but I'd say over the last couple of decades that Orca has been becoming fairly common as well. I mean, why can't the article be called Orca and Killer Whale redirects to it? Wikipedia is meant to be educational, isn't it? Rather than some populist top-40 chart where the most popular answer is the winner. The article on Ted Kaczynski isn't called "The Unabomber", the article on Operation Overlord isn't called "d-day". This seems like a really silly, unacademic adherence to WPs common names policy. 123.243.215.92 (talk) 03:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC) We seem to assume that "killer" means of humans ... would it not be something to do with the fact that key are (one of) the only cetaceans which are visibly predatory? Compare, for example, Pliny's description of them predating other whales to the predatory behaviour of other cetaceans, especially as understood in the pre-SCUBA era. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 13:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC) To assume that the "killer" in "killer whale" is to imply that killer whales are a threat to humans is to be grossly ignorant of the etymology of the name, which originally implied that these animals go out and hunt other whales, i.e., "killer of whales," a situation that has been observed by humans for centuries, even before Pliny.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Rename article *title* "Orca"

I think this got lost in the shuffle of an earlier discussion. This also is mentioned in the comments. Although the article makes it fairly clear that the orca is part of the dolphin family, I'd guess more visitors than not search on "killer whale" to get to the page. Not having the search results produce an article with "whale" would at least not confirm at first glance the common misconception that orcas are on the whale side of the cetaceans. Tadiew (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, in the first place, how does one differentiate "whale" from "cetacean"?--Mr Fink (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Why does this POV-pushing persist? Tadiew, there is a clear guideline called WP:COMMONNAME which tells us that this article should be named Killer whale. You cannot establish a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to override community consensus. The only legitimate argument that you could be presenting is that “Killer whale” is not the common name, but you have already admitted that you “guess more visitors than not search on "killer whale" to get to the page” so you are clearly not making a policy-based argument. If you are not arguing based on policy then this is not a legitimate talk page discussion.

Tadiew, remember that Wikipedia is for the readers and not the writers. I’m leaving this thread un-collapsed for now, but I suggest that you collapse it yourself as a show of good faith. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, google and yahoo searches for "Orca" yield several times the amount of results as "killer whale" in quotes. I'm pretty sure Orca is a very well-known name for the creature, and amongst professionals, Orca is almost certainly the preferred shorthand term, for obvious and well-publicized conservation reasons. I'm wondering what the justification for using "Killer Whale" is, to be honest. Does it really just come down to whichever one the original editor picked? That seems rather arbitrary when there are well-known reasons to use the other term, whether they are "legitimate" reasons or not. Surely Wikipedians strive for more than a pedantic adherence to the "rules." I think it should be the opposite of the current setup, with "Killer Whale" redirecting to "Orca." Precedent? Ayer's rock. Oh, can't find that article? That's because it's called Uluru. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.46.168 (talk) 08:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

No it does not “come down to whichever one the original editor picked”. You’re confusing WP:RETAIN (which deals with varieties of English) with WP:COMMONNAME which tells us that the article should be called “Killer Whale” because that is the common name of the animal.

Don’t misuse search engine results to push your point of view. In addition to being extremely trollish it is also very easy to do. For example: if I wanted to troll the page on vagina I could run a Bing search on “vagina” (which yields 49,100,000 results) and then I could run a search on “pussy” (which yields 165,000,000 results) and then I could run on over to the vagina article and argue that we should rename the article “pussy” because it got more results on Bing. However, if I did that I would be immediately laughed at because everybody knows that the internet is chock full of porn which will vastly inflate the number of results for “pussy”.

Also, when I ran a “Google Trends” search for “Killer whale” and “Orca” I got results which indicated that “Killer whale” was more commonly searched for. [[9]] Now please stop POV-pushing. Wikipedia editors should not have to spend time arguing with a marine mammal’s self-appointed public relations department. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ngram comparison suggests that the article name is correct per common name policy.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, a better ngram comparison yields just the opposite: Orca is more commonly used and has been for about thirty years. It was also the more common term until the mid 1930s, and is inarguably the more "correct" term as well. (The previously linked ngram was case sensitive, which skewed the results by treating Orca and orca as separate terms.) Tkinias (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It's definitely arguable what term is more "correct". That ngram is a start for a convincing move request, but it's still just google counts. I note even the most recent scientific papers still call them killer whales (eg [10]). If this is the minority, you'll have to demonstrate this. CMD (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

That Ngram is itself skewed as case insensitive means it included things which have all popped up in the last thirty years like:

• ORCA - Ocean Research and Conservation Association
• ORCA - Online Representations and Certifications Application (huge as this is a contractor registration for doing business with US Gov.)
• ORCA - One Regional Card for All
• ORCA - Orlando Reef Caretakers Association
• ORCA - Ocean Research College Academy
• ORCA - Organization of Regulatory and Clinical Associates
• ORCA - Oregon Reader's Choice Award

...and so on with a multitude of acronyms.

My Ngram was correct as it disambiguates from these errors. All lowercase "orca" is correct usage when not written at the beginning of a sentence (Lion or lion?).
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The impact of "ORCA" is substantial as this Ngram shows. That throws Tkinias' Ngram off as it failed to exclude them.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: I'm reading your n-gram as noting that both varieties of Orca outweigh Kkiller Wwhale by about 0.0000020%. Not that significant, but it seems like it's slightly more common for gbooks to have it. CMD (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

They do not outweigh "killer whale" (your pattern "Kkiller Wwhale" implies they do) which is more than 0.0000020% above either variety of orca.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

"killer whale" outweighs both "Orca" and "orca" individually, but the sum of all orca variations there outweighs the sum of all killer whale. I don't see that as conclusively calling killer whale more common. CMD (talk) 11:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Text cut from Captivity section

Hi everyone. I just cut some text from the Captivity section because it's too much detail on a small number of cases. This article needs to be of reasonable length while still giving a good overview of the species as a whole. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Deleted text

In a 2011 CNN Justice news article, Bill Mears and Tom Cohen wrote about a lawsuit that PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) pursued against SeaWorld. PETA filed a "20-page complaint [which] asks the U.S. District Court in Southern California to declare that the five whales – Tilikum, Katina, Corky, Kasatka, and Ulises – are being held in slavery or involuntary servitude in violation of the 13th Amendment." PETA claims the 13th amendment technically does not state it applies only to human animals. Ric O'Barry and two former SeaWorld trainers supported PETA in moving forward with this lawsuit. Legal cases in state and federal courts dealing with animal cruelty tend to be based on human actions solely because animals cannot actually be prosecuted or actively participate as plaintiffs and defendants on trial.

In 1970, a killer whale, later named Lolita, was captured from the Puget Sound waters, and has since been performing at Miami Seaqurium for more than 40 years. During these four decades, celebrities, children, and a Washington governor have campaigned to free Lolita. One of the Lolita supporters is Howard Garret, a cofounder of the nonprofit Orca Network located on Whidbey Island, Wash. Garret believes Lolita has a strong memory of her life and her family in her former natural habitat. The Miami Seaquarium argues Lolita's interaction and dependence on her human caregivers supersedes her natural survival instincts, thus she would not survive on her own in the wild. They also argue human and boat activity, as well as pollution, are serious threats to killer whales. In December 2011, supporters offered $1 million to have Lolita freed from the Miami Seaquarium. After campaign and financial efforts to free Lolita were denied by the Miami Seaquarium, activists are suing the federal government in federal court in Seattle with the argument that Lolita should have been protected when other southern region orcas were listed as endangered species in 2005. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) deems it illegal to "harass, harm, pursue, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect" to any species put on the list. The Miami Sequarium did not wish to comment on the lawsuit, instead it released a statement highlighting Lolita's life in captivity as active, healthy, and well cared for. One plaintiff in the lawsuit, Carter Dillard, chief counsel for the Animal Legal Defense Fund, suggested Lolita should be moved to a larger "sea pen" home, where she would be able to swim farther distances and interact with other killer whales.

In February 2010, 40-year-old SeaWorld Trainer Dawn Brancheau was killed by a 12,300-lb male killer whale named Tilikum. The fatal event occurred after a show called "Dine with Shamu" at SeaWorld's Shamu Stadium in Orlando, Florida. The Orange County sheriff's spokesman Jim Solomons stated Brancheau slipped and fell into the 35-foot-deep tank, where one of the killer whales fatally injured her. However, other witnesses maintain Brancheau was violently grabbed and attacked by the killer whale. Lori Miller, who attended the show at SeaWorld prior to the death of the trainer, spoke on "Larry King Live", saying the trainers had a hard time getting the killer whales to perform. Captives occasionally act aggressively towards themselves, their tankmates, or humans, which critics say is a result of stress. A spokesperson for PETA commented on this incident and referred to it as "a tragedy that didn't have to happen." Before Brancheau's death, two other trainers were involved in incidents with killer whales at SeaWorld. In 2006 during a show at the Shamu Stadium, a trainer was seriously injured after being grabbed by a whale and held underwater. In 1999, Daniel Dukes, age 27, sneaked into the park after closing, and his body was later discovered on Tilikum's back. An examination of the body found multiple wounds, contusions, and abrasions. The coroner determined that the man had died from drowning and hypothermia.

New / substituted citation to replace dead link

Reference 187 is a dead link. Substitute the current reference for this open access peer-reviewed paper in a scientific journal which is a better reference: Parsons, E.C.M. (2013)Killer whale killers. Tourism in Marine Environments 8(3): 153-160 http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/cog/1544273x/v8n3/s4.pdf?expires=1384641825&id=76265000&titleid=75000210&accname=Guest+User&checksum=1E159CD44CEFF602C754C182E1570EF6 ECM Parsons (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: It doesn't seem to be a dead link and the link you provided has expired, so I can't determine whether it supports the text. Also, you need to exercise caution when asking to have a paper which is apparently written by you inserted into any article. Please read WP:COI. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

A live link to the article that ECM Parsons suggested is here: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/cog/tme/2012/00000008/00000003/art00004 . I couldn't find a dead link at or near ref 187 either, and I just drastically shortened the Captivity section, so I'm not sure if there is an appropriate place to put this reference. However, ECM hasn't done anything remotely wrong. We are glad to have experts contribute and I'm afraid it's not unusual to have them be frightened away on their first edit. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 08:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Removals

I removed the "dialect" and "hunting" subsections in the "Behavior" section. They are already discussed in the article. Please read or look through the article before adding in more information so it won't be redundant. LittleJerry (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I undid your removals because (a) the hunting section provided useful information about two hunting techniques not present in the rest of the article. If you feel like the info does not deserve its own section, integrate it into the rest of the article.(b) "Much of the information is redundant" There is no deadline. Instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, delete the info you think is redundant. Thanks. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 04:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the article? Both these hunting behaviors are stated in the "Feeding section" (read the fourth paragraph of "Mammal prey"). Likewise, the vocalization section already talks about dialects, the differences between transents and residents, the stability of vocalizations, etc. I suggest you read the two sections and see how much information is repeated. LittleJerry (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

In fact, yes. I examined the sections much more closely than simply looking at the section title and assuming redundancy. The Feeding section mentions two methods of hunting that are not mentioned anywhere else in the article, namely that of rushing at penguins on ice floes to wash them into the water and orcas beaching themselves in order to catch seals. I also checked the dialects section. It has plenty of information different from the other sections, such as the content talking about group signatures. Please spend the time to read the article instead of just telling others to "read the article" when you have only scanned the titles of the sections yourself. Thank you. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 15:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: While the fourth paragraph mentions the same technique of beaching, it does not mention allowing younger members to practice. This could be integrated into the above section instead of deleting. Similarly, with the penguins, reintegration is also a better option. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 16:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I have integrated some of the acoustic information. If you think there's more that should, please state so. Don't add back the redundant information that is already mentioned. LittleJerry (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for meeting me at a middle ground! – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Life cycle (correction needed)

Granny (J2) is estimated to be 103 years old and not 113.

 Done Gaijin42 (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)