Talk:Orca

Better wording for section of threats to humans in opening
The sentence "Wild orcas are not considered a threat to humans, and no fatal attack on humans has ever been documented." doesn't read well for me. In particular I missed the "Wild" at the beginning which is key for correct understanding of the second half. Also the passive construction "are not considered" could be considered 'weasel words'. I think something like "Orcas are not usually a threat to humans, and no fatal attack has ever been documented in their natural habitat." would be an improvement. Thoughts? Eluchil404 (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * , I agree. LittleJerry (talk) 12:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Wolf should be linked to Sinonyx a carnivorous artiodactyl which was the ancestors of whales
"wolves of the sea" should be linked to Sinonyx a carnivorous artiodactyl (Mesonychid) also called "wolf on hoofs" 103.226.243.133 (talk) 10:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * That would not be appropriate for this article, nor for the place where "wolf" is mentioned. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There is also the problem of how mesonychids are not artiodactyls to begin with.Mr Fink (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Surfer Bitten claim needs a source
You cannot make claims like this without citing a primary source. This needs to be deleted until it can be cited. 76.93.232.99 (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The source at the end of the sentence supports the surfer part of the sentence too. "There has never been a documented fatal killer whale attack on a human. The only relatively well-documented bite was one suffered by a surfer in California in the early 1970s" Schazjmd   (talk)  20:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to do more research, the surfer's name was Hans Kretschmer, and it happened in 1972. Here's the contemporary news report from The Los Angeles Times: Whale Takes Bite From Surfer's Leg. Schazjmd   (talk)  21:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

New Speciesbox image?
Per [https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.231368#d1e2700 Morin et al. (2024)], Orcinus has been split. The existing Speciesbox image depicts the transient population, now Orcinus rectipinnus. I'm not entirely sure which image would be the best replacement, or if it needs to be replaced at all, but I thought it'd be a good idea to bring it up. Borophagus (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * For mammals, we wait until secondary sources pick up the work of primary sources. Typically, this means waiting until the new species appears in ASM's MDD, so I'm going to revert your recent changes. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, got it. Wasn't aware of that requirement. Borophagus (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries. Wikipedia is a simple complex. ;) - UtherSRG (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And if they are split, this article would be about the genus Orcinus so the current picture would still be appropriate. LittleJerry (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

MDD Update
ASM's MDD now has both O. ater and O. rectipinnus listed, though acknowledges that O. orca remains paraphyletic. Meanwhile, the Society for Marine Mammalogy (considered a taxonomic authority on marine mammals) recognizes them as subspecies until further research clarifies their status. Separate pages for resident and Bigg's types wouldn't be difficult, at least, but this page might need to be changed. It could be moved to Orcinus and discuss just the genus, which would require a separate O. orca page. Or it could remain as-is (with added information on these recent taxonomic proposals) until there's a clearer picture of what researchers are using. YellowstoneLimestone (talk) 04:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)