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

Another issue: In the article it is said that the killer whale is not a whale. This is contradictive to the Whale article, but may be consistent with the Cetacea article. Could someone look into this more thoroughly? --Arnejohs 20:35, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * It's not a whale, it's a dolphin. That goes for any definition of dolphin you care to pick. I'll take a look at the whale article. Pcb21| Pete 21:16, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually whale already explicitly said that it was technically a dolphin, so there was no contradiction. I've reworded the article to make it, I hope, completely unambigious. Pcb21| Pete 21:21, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * So you are actually saying that a dolphin is not a whale? --Arnejohs 23:15, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * First thing, we are writing in the English Wikipedia here. I am aware that in other languages there is a stronger tendency to equate "cetaceans" and "whales" as the same thing. Second thing, in practice, people who study whales and dolphins don't bother to categorize a particular species as a whale or a dolphin as these are vague unscientific terms anyhow. They just talk about families (or suborders).


 * Having said that, here are the names of a selection of books on my bookshelf. I hope that you are convinced that, in English, dolphins are not a subset of whales, they are both distinct subsets of cetaceans
 * Collins Gem: Whales and Dolphins
 * Dorling Kindersely Handbooks: Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises
 * Whales and Dolphins in Question Smithsonian Press
 * Whales and Dolphins, Collins Press
 * Whales and Dolphins: Guide to the biology and behaviour of cetaceans, Swan Hill Press
 * Dolphins, Whales and Porpoises: 2002-2010 Conservation Action Plan for World's Cetaceans, IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group
 * Reader's Digest Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises
 * Cetacean Societies: Field studies of Dolphins and Whales, Chicago University Press
 * Whales and Dolphins of the European Atlantic, WildGuides


 * Pcb21| Pete 00:01, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm still not convinced, even though I may not be the right person to have strong opinions on the difference between English and other languages in cases like this. I can however observe that there are other views presented, in English, by rather authoritative sources. Take the International Whaling Commission as an example, they present a whales taxonomy where both suborder Mysticeti (referred to as baleen whales or mysticetes) and suborder Odontoceti (referred to as toothed whales or odontocetes). The latter also includes the Delphinidae family. If you take the Wikipedia article on Whaling you'll se that the first sentence is in line with this understanding.


 * And further: There is no point in trying to achieve a scientific precision on the use of common names, that's what we have the scientific nomenclature for. But Wikipedia has to be consistent with the common understanding and use of common names, on that we agree. What if the common names have different interpretations in different (English speaking) countries or even different age cohorts, political groups or what ever? I guess we have to cover all these understandings and interpretations rather than telling some of them to be wrong.


 * Finally: The English version of Wikipedia has an exceptional position, different from all others. It is by far the largest, partly due to contributions from people not having English as their first language. English has become the international language for large groups. I guess this will have to be reflected also in the content, which we all should have equal right to influence on.


 * --Arnejohs 09:55, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Naturally we should tell people about the various naming conventions. That is why at whale, we say that some people use whale to mean all cetaceans, but in this article, we use the predominating English usage which take dolphins as distinct. I am happy with that. Since you mention the IWC, it is worth mentioning the first line of, "The 1946 Convention does not define a 'whale'". Yes the dolphins are taxonomically classified as Odonticetes, i.e. they have teeth. Yes the usual English translation of odontocetes is "toothed whale". This does indeed reflect an inconsistency in English... but it is not unique to Wikipedia. Pcb21| Pete 12:13, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * It's probably no use in continuing this discussion. But let me ask you a final question: According to your definition of whale, a sperm whale is not a whale. Clearly it is neither a dolphin. The common English word is simply (or may be not so simple): Sperm whale, but not whale (only sperm left). Am I right?
 * --Arnejohs 12:56, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I think you may have to edit the Sperm Whale article as well, since it seems to assume Sperm whale being whales: "The whale was named.." and is even referred to as "the archetypal whale".
 * --Arnejohs 13:12, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * There are two possibilities. Either you have made a simple mistake understanding "my" (as you put it) definition that the whales are those cetaceans that are not dolphins (where dolphins are the members of Delphiniadae and Platanistoidea) or porpoises, or you are trying to troll me. The Sperm Whale is clearly a member of Physeteridae and is thus a whale, as all our articles correctly state. So a mistake or a troll? Pcb21| Pete 13:48, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Troll? I will try to make my point clear: You say Sperm whale is whale. Sperm whale is within the suborder Odontoceti, as is Delphinidae (dolphins). Sperm whale is whale, but other members of the same suborder are not whales. This is your view point?
 * --Arnejohs 17:23, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, that it is the most common way of describing things. I have repeatedly said that the common usage is only loosely in line with the scientific classification. Pcb21| Pete 17:30, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I am still confused, now may be on higher level? The Cetacea order I thought most of us consider as being whales (including baleen whales and toothed whales as sperms and dolphins) has to be divided, splitting one of the two suborders, labelling the animals (I guess they all commonly could be named animals) whales, dolphins and porpoises. It is not even loosely in line with the scientific classification, it is in conflict with it. Very well, sometimes common naming is like that. But in this case evidently common naming has been (?) in line with it at an earlier stage, before it became common naming the killer whale orca for example. While using the term killer whale, clearly the killer whale is acknowledged as a whale. But now it is not common any more because of unknown reasons, - and supported by the Wikipedians in charge. No big deal, but an interesting development, hereby documented. I'll leave it here.
 * --Arnejohs 21:36, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * User:Pcb21/Name the whales Pcb21| Pete 16:43, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)