Talk:Luna (orca)

Further Comments in 2010

This article should be a stub. It is filled with redundant information and it is hard to understand. I feel as if I'm reading the agenda of one of the 'save the whales'-type organizations, rather than in informative short word about a single animal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SgtDizzle01 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement - the article uses far too much sensationalist language that distracts from factuality. It unquestionably demonizes the DFO, both through unsupported attributions, editorializing and the omission of material that would support a more balanced viewpoint (e.g. criticisms of the obstructive actions of First Nations during the repatriation attempts). Furthermore, it is poorly written, even for a "save-the-whale" publication.--Hellosparta (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I've done a major revert to the December 2009 version, which I think was far better, more neutral, more fact-based, and a better basis for moving forward. Arguably, instead of reverting, we should do a thorough source review and carefully prune out problematic statements one by one. However, that hasn't been happening in over 7 months. I've tried to psyche myself up for a major cleanup effort but kept finding it just depressing. I think this is one of the infrequent cases where stubbing an article is an appropriate and healthy part of the collaborative writing process. We need a fresh start. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The version before my revert is here: [1]. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I feel better already. To demonstrate that this really is a good way forward, I'll commit to making sure this version is thoroughly sourced and copyedited within a week. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea how to put comments here, but I am a random passerby and was kind of shocked to see some heavy wording. Did we really need to use 'their plans were thwarted'? I changed the intro so it's more neutral in just its wording. Again, I guess. I haven't checked out the rest of the article so whoever doctors it up, please be aware that the words you use have connotations, and should be kept neutral, along with what you are trying to say. I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.55.1 (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The introduction, though short and sweet, bypasses the text and leads to misinformation. The First Nations are not the only group to have opposed the DFO's plans. The text itself also lacks a certain objectivity on that topic. Non-governmental wildlife preservation groups, local residents, national groups of all sorts made pressure on the DFO to leave the whale in it's "chosen habitat" and have bypassed the DFO's orders concerning the whale, particularly in keeping contact with him while ensuring its security. (Forgive the redundance of the term "bypass"). For example, by patrolling the area and keeping people from interacting with the whale in open spaces, the DFO indirectly led the whale to seek interaction with people at the docks of Gold River....logical. I didn't interpret anything as "demonizing the DFO" (I even found it actually lessens the impact of it's reactions, decisions and attitude in this particular mandate), though there were clear subjective judgements of the First Nations' role in the affair. In my understanding of the text, the First Nations are responsible of having kept the whale in the area where it was killed....and are almost shown as being indirectly guilty of its death, which is a perception of the truth but not a fact. I will not edit the text because I'm not very good at sourcing and my written english is not up to notch with this kind of publication. But I wish the author would stick to the facts.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.173.134 (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments on changes made in July 2011 - Can this biased article be fixed?

Can this article easily be reverted to the clear, objective one which Clayoquot did in 2010? The current version is full of irrelevant material. It is biased, confusing, poorly organized, not properly annotated, and does not serve the reader well. It has evidently been changed throughout by an individual with a specific personal agenda, to promote himself and his own organization and to conduct personal attacks. This individual has apparently, using different user names, done this kind of thing to this entry before. I tried to make some edits which address some of these problems (because they incorrectly portrayed our personal involvement in the story) but there is much more work that needs to be done on this, and I think the best thing would be to revert the whole article to Clayoquot's 2010 version. To the experienced wikipedia editors out there - can you do this? LunaFriend (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Why no mention of opposition to the "reunion" plans?

What a collection of silliness and (arrogant ignorant expensive) busy-body do-gooderism. Whale is doing whale things, but not to the whale-worthy standards of self-appointed whale-dingbats. Do-gooders decide to help whale whether he likes it or not. Do-gooders manage to kill whale. This would be comedy if it wasn't for the whole "pulled into the ship's propeller and chopped to pieces" thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.176.129 (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

why are there so many people upset about this having a place in Wikimedia?

What some of you don't understand and don't realize is the profound impact this whale has had on the boundaries between animals and humans. After watching many documentaries and reading several articles on killer whales, I've found that killer whales are not so different than us in intelligence and emotion(even more so in emotion, they have actually developed a part of their brain that we don't have that scientist believe allows them to be far more social than even we are). What this means is that the way we perceive animals such as these is not what we had imagined and can lead us all to a better understanding of the creatures that live on this earth we no so little to nothing about and maybe more about ourselves even. The question I pose is a simple one, if this story is so unimportant, what would happen if this whale had survived and was properly studied. I know that only greater knowledge of the unknown would be explored and with greater technological advances would speed up are xenophobia of the unknown to the known. We all fear the unknown but few of us are willing to chance our fear for breakthroughs. Its only when we conquer our fears that we as humans will better ourselves. Id like to finish that i'm a very neutral person but i'm baffled by how many of you ignorant people that have posted so much dislike on this subject and would ask that you remember that this is not facebook or youtube and to keep your cynicism to yourself. — Preceding George Jr 1982 comment added by Special:Contributions/George Jr 1982 (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

8/21/16 - Movie link is to the English author, not the Canadian FN actor - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Greene_(actor). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.5.237 (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Luna (killer whale). 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/20131116092055/http://reuniteluna.com/about.php to http://www.reuniteluna.com/about.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121109014951/http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=e44d7605-c555-4d07-b376-53ab0a74f752 to http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=e44d7605-c555-4d07-b376-53ab0a74f752

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 16:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Luna (killer whale). 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/20110811103507/http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=f3e0b0e8-3336-4bcb-af10-d919a75aa00c to http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=f3e0b0e8-3336-4bcb-af10-d919a75aa00c

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 21:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chimo (killer whale) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 edits

Wildscience1976 has made extensive edits in September, most of which display a close familiarity with the topic, but some of which are 1) unsourced, b) opinion narratives, bordering on WP:SYNTH, and/or 3) show a potential conflict of interest or personal involvement in the Luna history. If such WP:COI exists, Wildscience1976 is obligated to declare it, and to adhere to WP:NPOV. The sections on the pod reunion attempts, death, and legacy - which I edited here - had extensive narratives, much of it off-topic, showing strong opinions on events. Wikipedia is not a textbook for all possible views on a topic, WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. I have trimmed this content, while requesting more references, preferably online documentaries or news reports per neutral WP:RS. --Zefr (talk) 00:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@WildScience1976: you need to discuss your edits here, otherwise you may find yourself unable to edit this article further. MPS1992 (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi All... This is Wildscience1976. I DO NOT have a WP:COI or personal involvement in the Luna story. But like many here in the Pacific Northwest who love orcas, I am extremely familiar with this story because it was in the news almost every day. Much of that media is still available online, and some that aren't have been preserved by NGOs like Orca Conservancy in its "Luna File," which is available on their site. This Wikipedia article had numerous flags on it for uncited, unverifiable content, requesting that changes be made. So having a copy of previous versions of this article, along with all the original citations, I went in and fixed it as best I could. However, it appears my work was undone the next day by one editor, who appears to want very much to elevate the role of filmmakers Michael Parfit and Suzanne Chisholm, both as subjects of this article and even as cited sources. This is against Wikipedia rules.

I have made extensive edits on this piece, largely because it appeared to read like a promotional piece for the filmmakers of "The Whale." The previous version included numerous citations to "chisholm," even on matters of scientific record like orca ID and other facts. The previous editor pulled entire, extremely critical timeline content that I re-inserted into the piece, ALL CITED, that are absolutely essential to the Luna story (e.g. the Namu Shuttle, the First Nations-DFO mediation). I appreciate suggestions to make my writing more encyclopedic, and I'm happy to do that. If the content I have included is not properly cited, then it should be removed. BUT if it is cited, it cannot be.

The Luna story is very familiar to orca followers like us in Seattle. A copious media record exists of the saga. There is no need to rely repeatedly on one source, Parfit and Chisholm, to tell this story. And one documentary is hardly more relevant than the entire media record of the Luna crisis. According to one published article, it appears that Parfit and Chisholm didn't even get involved in the Luna story until April of 2003, and not directly until "a year after the rescue attempt failed." The previous editor also seems to be inclined to extract many references to Orca Conservancy and Michael Harris, who was once one of the subjects of Parfit and Chisholm for their Smithsonian piece but later appeared frequently in local media as highly critical of the filmmakers' actions in Nootka Sound. Again, the media record tells a very clear story about what happened with Luna the orca whale and I have relied entirely on that objective record in my contributions here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WildScience1976 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Granny (killer whale) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)