Talk:Luna (orca)

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Further Comments in 2010

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comments on changes made in July 2011 - Can this biased article be fixed? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why no mention of opposition to the "reunion" plans? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  why are there so many people upset about this having a place in Wikimedia? 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: 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)
thread_title:  September 2019 edits 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress