Talk:Orca

Missing image
Cscr-featured.png
Featured article star

Orca is a featured article, which means it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute.

Older issues:

Talk:Orca/General archive 1

Talk:Orca/Should the page be at Orca or Killer Whale (resolution: Orca)

Talk:Orca/Is it a dolphin, a whale, both?! (resolution: dolphin)

Contents

9 Possible plagiarism

10 How many species of seabirds ?

11 Other uses

12 Spanish

Naming

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

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

This is a important point. Why was it removed?

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, that's fine by me.

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

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

"Killer"

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

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

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

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

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

Other things I noticed:

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

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

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

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

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

Actually the fact some members of the Scott party were "prowled" by killer whales is well-known. For a primary source see the excellent and still in print The Worst Journey in the World by Apsley Cherry-Gerrard. Also orca knocking seals off ice floes and then eating them has been extensively recorded in Patagonia (TV documentaries sometimes feature footage). However it is right to be a bit circumspect with quite what "prowled" means in this context - killer whales already had a fiercesome reputation before the Scott expedition and so accounts are likely to be exaggerated. In fact the stranded members were far more likely to drown than be eaten - skinny humans are not a tasty meal for orca. Pcb21| Pete 21:55, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I found the first few pages of the book you recommended were available for perusal on Amazon. Looks like a good read; thanks for the suggestion! HorsePunchKid 04:13, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

I think it is correct to relate the killer term to the normal behaviour of the killer whale as an efficient predator. The Norwegian name on killer whale is directly translated to blubber chopper (actually there a two common names used in Norwegian, the other referring to the impressing dorsal fin of the killer whale). Blubber chopper certainly refers directly to the behaviour of the efficient killer.
--Arnejohs 21:32, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pictures

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

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

Polossatik?

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

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

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

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

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

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

For what it's worth, the correct Russian spelling is полосатик. The term is (in a technical context, at least) only used ([1] (http://www.floranimal.ru/families/2383.html)) to refer to members of Balaenopteridae [2] (http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Balaenopteridae.html), as far as I can tell. These are baleen whales, which are not particularly closely related to the dolphins, orcas, and other toothed whales. I'll see if I can find the correct Russian term... HorsePunchKid 05:44, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

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

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

Distribution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Capitalization?

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

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

I went ahead and took care of this. If lower case is good enough for ADW [3] (http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Orcinus_orca.html) (and every other source I found), it's good enough for me! HorsePunchKid 06:09, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

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

Frequency of songs

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

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

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

plural of orca

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

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

MSN Encarta Dictionary claims that the plural is "orcas". [4] (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861635329/orca.html) I was unable to find any other site which offered an authoritative opinion on this. - Brian Kendig 22:16, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Possible plagiarism

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

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

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

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

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

How many species of seabirds ?

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

Other uses

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

Indeed. Looking at, for example, this translation (http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/OMACL/Orlando/9-10cant.html), the beast in Orlando Furioso is called an "orc", not an "orca". For example, "The orc, that measureless sea-monster, hies / Which on abominable food is fed." Perhaps this point should be covered under "naming" instead of having the notice at the top (which still seems rather out of place to me). HorsePunchKid 03:19, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

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

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

Urhixidur 14:39, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

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

Spanish

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

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Orca"