Talk:Orca attacks

Entire Article

Seems to have a strong bias suggesting an aggressive and dangerous nature to this animal. We should start by using the actual name "Orca" in the heading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.244.83.7 (talk) 08:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Also it should talk more about why an animal might attack. Only humans attack soley "to cause harm." For a helpless animal, the instinct may be to communicate or defend itself. So the phrase saying that Orcas may attack "to cause harm" is one of bias and ignorance. 69.137.150.35 (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately the term killer whale is a widely used common name for Orcinus orca. The species page for orcas is titled Killer Whale so this page needs to remain titled as such to avoid confusion.

The sentence in which the term "to cause harm" appears in is written to convey that researchers don't know why these animals act out in the ways the do, whether it's is play, hormones or a genuine attempt "to cause harm." Sadly the thought that these violent episodes are indeed meant to harm the humans involved can not be avoided.

Because there is no consensus among biologists and each incident's circumstances are unique, any thoughts on why orcas, as a whole, do these things would be speculation. Motivations for a specific incident can be added to its entire as long as it has a citation. FunFindCitations (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Why is there an article on this topic? It seems far too obscure to justify a separate article.101.98.163.177 (talk) 06:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

First section

If the 1999 incident is not an actual "attack," should it be included in this list at all? Pesatros 08:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because it would be of interest to those seeking out the information on this page. Frankg (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it resulted in that guy winning a Darwin Award... — Rickyrab | Talk 23:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Tilikum attacks trainer Feb 24, 2010

February 24, 2010 - Tilikum just grabbed one of the trainers by the waist at seaworld in Orlando around 1:45pm EST and dragged her to the bottom of the pool. The park has shut down the entire area surrounding the tank. --67.76.220.12 (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Over dependence on a single blog as source?

A large number of additions have been made to this article recently by an unregistered editor ([1] 76.30.254.94). Many of these additions cite a web site / blog www.orcahome.de "Violent incidents between humans and killer whales in captivity - a longer list than the parks would like to tell you!" and then references additional references contained in the blog. I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the blogs' references but it would probably be better for a wikipedia article to reference sources directly, not via web sites that reference additional sources. Since I do not have access to the original sources referenced in the www.orcahome.de web site, I hesitate to add those original references to the article myself. if anyone has access to these sources, please replace the www.orcahome.de/... references in the article with the original source. Pugetbill (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(Neither) Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery seems to have article about Orca attack

On websites, sometimes a "Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery" is claimed to have an article about an orca attack on humans (Hans Kretschmer, in particular). There are not one but two journals with that name, a British one and an American one. I spent quite some time trying to track down any information about an orca attack in either of them. I found nothing. This claim appears to be a self-propagating myth at this point. Jason Quinn (talk) 08:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

One of the original URLs (now dead) to which I was referring was

• http://www.planetoceanalliance.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-10699.html

and a currently working one is

• http://www.arkanimals.com/orcinus-orca-the-animal-and-the-beast/

Perhaps it is true but I searched as extensively as I could using the online archives. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Man attacked on beach video

After more digging into the video of a man being dragged into the ocean by two killer whales, I have discovered that it is indeed a fabricated video. The question of legitimacy was sparked by the fact that there were two versions of the same footage floating around YouTube (one with screaming and one without) and after a quick Google search I found that the film was made for an add for a Dominican Republic pencil company.

http://www.hoax-slayer.com/killer-whale-takes-man-video.shtml http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg/stomp/sgseen/this_urban_jungle/918800/ad_showing_killer_whale_attacking_man_looks_real.html

FunFindsCitations (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

San Francisco Examiner article

There may be an article related to the Hans Kretschmer case in the San Francisco Examiner from 11 September 1972 on page 16 called "Report of probable killer whale attack." If anybody could confirm this, it would be great. It's not available through the SFE's website. This URL http://www.arkanimals.com/orcinus-orca-the-animal-and-the-beast/ is where I got this. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Statistics

This article lacks information about how often humans encounter killer whales in water. Since killer whales apparently prefer cold water, it is probable that rarity of attacks on humans can be partly due to the rarity of opportunity. It would be useful to include if attack/encounter ratio in the article.Эйхер (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Эйхер. I agree with you that the encounters are probably pretty rare that maybe that explains something. I doubt however there's any published source that quantifies the matter. How would it even be defined? How would one even go about measuring it? Seems very difficult, if not impossible, to do. If there is, it would make a great addition to the article. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, my guess could be premature. Transcient killer whales (the ones who can, theoreticaly, attack humans as a prey) were seen near the shores of California (where recreational swimming is usual). Besides that, an Inuit hunter in his kayak would be easy prey for a killer whale. It could be speculated, of course, that attacking human in the boat is beyound nonhuman intelligence, but it would be a weak case, given that killer whales are known to crash ice floes to get seals. Эйхер (talk) 15:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, I have not yet been able to find a published source, but I heard John Lilly speak at Cal Tech in about 1970 reporting on his research on the dearth of Orca attacks in the wild. He claimed to have examined hundreds of whaling ship logbooks in an effort to discover a reported incident of an attack. He said that he found many reports of humans ending up in the water during their efforts to hunt and kill larger whales and that Orcas who appeared to actively feed on the injured whales never attacked any of these men. Reports from the people who began the live capture of Orcas in the late 60's and early 70's also reported in-the-water encounters during their capture efforts that also did not result in attacks. These are extremely unusual data for interactions between humans and large predators.Nesdon (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2013 (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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no move. -- tariqabjotu 20:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Killer whale attacks on humans → List of killer whale attacks on humans – That's just what this article actually is Эйхер (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Эйхер (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, I think it's fine the way it is. Melonkelon (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose True, but it's not really all the article should be. There should be more general discussion of the likelihood and prevalence of killer whale attacks. Renaming will only encourage it to remain chiefly a list. --BDD (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose; I agree with BDD. It may be little more than a list at the moment, but we should encourage editors to remedy that deficiency, instead of setting it in stone. bobrayner (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. The article can be improved by moving away from the list format. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • But the article is there for five years (at least) and it is what it is. Has anybody published a scientific research on the subject? It seems very possible to me that the article isn't "what it should be" just because of lack of relevant sources. Эйхер (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Blackfish link

Hello - This reversion of an edit I made puts a link to a disambig page back into this article. Even if we determine that the film Blackfish should be linked to in the See also section, we would not want it to go to a disambig page. So, I am going to leave it in See also, but am going to link it properly and italicize it. Any concerns, let's discuss. KConWiki (talk) 04:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Oops - I see that someone has beaten me to this. Thanks KConWiki (talk) 04:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I intended to undo a different edit. Your edit was correct and justified, the error was mine. FunFindsCitations (talk) 11:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

MV Nisshin Maru - Japan's whaling factory ship

There is a report that 16 crewmembers were killed and 12 injured by orcas that attacked them when they jumped into the water in an emergency. Personally, I have to wonder if this wasn't intelligent behavior. http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/japanese-whaling-crew-eaten-alive-by-killer-whales-16-dead/ Awaiting verification. 108.245.208.221 (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Satire. Pity. Written so straight it didn't come off as satire. 108.245.208.221 (talk) 04:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Fatalities

The article intro says "There have been only four recorded fatal incidents". Yet the article lists far more than that....101.98.163.177 (talk) 06:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Killer whale attacks on humans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100227232446/http://www.clickorlando.com:80/news/22659901/detail.html? to http://www.clickorlando.com/news/22659901/detail.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Killer whale attacks on humans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140116140300/http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2016252937_apusseaworlddeath.html to http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2016252937_apusseaworlddeath.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140116140300/http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2016252937_apusseaworlddeath.html to http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2016252937_apusseaworlddeath.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Citation reinstated

September 9, 2008, Marineland Antibes incident citation - Unsure why this reference was removed. Only issue could find with it is that the user that posted this video to YouTube has placed biased annotations on top of the video. However, the clip is shown in its entirety, and does show what is described in the incident entry.  FunFindsCitations  (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Article is heavily biased and seems to be agenda driven.

The older versions of this article included a wild killer whale attack that involved a fatality;

In 1894 the Jackson–Harmsworth Expedition to Baffin Island recorded that on the 12th of May a midshipman was 'dragged from an ice flow by a black whale' and was subsequently not seen again. The ship's physician, Reginald Koettlitz, later confirmed this to be a killer whale.[7]

There was no reason to remove this. It seems as though whoever removed this was a person who is trying to push the agenda that killer whales have never harmed anyone in the wild, thus the attacks at SeaWorld were due to the killer whales going psychotic and other anthropomorphism without any evidence to back it up. Also, killer whale is their original and mainstream name, as killer whales are viscous predators. It isn't 'biased' (like the person below me says) to call a killer whale vicious anymore than it's 'biased' to call a lion or a tiger viscous.

What's more is this blatant denialism of the aggression of killer whales is potentially dangerous or lethal if someone decides to swim with them because they were fed misinformation about how killer whales are cuddly sea pandas and whatnot.

The reason there aren't many incidents or fatalities in the wild is lack of opportunity; killer whales thrive in areas most people do not swim in, so opportunities are scarce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.238.95 (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi 91.110.238.95, I removed that paragraph back in May 2015, not because of any "agenda", but because the event could not be verified. Please provide a reliable source that confirms a "midshipman was 'dragged from an ice flow by a black whale'" and then it can be added back. Melonkelon (talk) 02:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

2021 Spain has restricted boats due to many more orca attacks

Article needs updating with the 2021 attacks and boat ban citing, for example, The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/08/spain-bans-small-boats-from-stretch-of-water-after-orca-encounters 91.125.234.171 (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

And more incidents from 2022: two sailboats have now been sunk by this activity. https://www.portugalresident.com/second-sailing-boat-sinks-after-interaction-with-orcas/ Wpjonathan (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Bernd Würsig

Herr Würsig published an article in German about him being attacked by a killer whale: Würsig, Bernd (1989). "Ein Schwertwal griff mich an". Das Tier. 24 (3).. The article isn't available online but it is cited in some scientific papers without much detail. Эйхер (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Article title change

It should read “Orca” rather than “killer whale” LenLiptack (talk) 03:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The species article is now titled "Orca" rather than "Killer Whale" so I think it makes sense. LegalUsername (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Victim of a collision

In 2018 a motorboat collided with an orca in Taui Bay resulting in the death of a man. According to the survivor there was no evidence of agression. Should this accident be mentioned in the article? Эйхер (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Blackfish as a source

Blackfish has many inaccuracies as seen her as well as evidence to prove it see here: http://da15bdaf715461308003-0c725c907c2d637068751776aeee5fbf.r7.cf1.rackcdn.com/adf36e5c35b842f5ae4e2322841e8933_4-4-14-updated-final-of-blacklist-list-of-inaccuracies-and-misleading-points.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joytotherainbow (talk • contribs) 22:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Your evidence does not meet WP:RS criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Attacks in the wild

An IP has been making a lot of removals of things they don't like without offering better sources or alternative approaches. While their approach is over the top, I have edited the lede to provide a better summary of perceived orca attacks in the wild, versus the previous lede's bald assertion of attacks. This is based on the consensus of the sourced content in the body of the article, as a lede is supposed to do; the Blackfish source seems to me to be inappropriately used in the lede to make a statement that isn't really supported elsewhere. Acroterion (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)