Talk:Shark fin soup/Archive 1

Archive 1

Shark fin soup in China

Yes, but what's in it? It is really made out of shark fins, or is that just a name? Where is it most commonly eaten in China? How old is this recipe? -- The Anome 11:54, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

According to Chinese cuisine, it is eaten as part of Szechuanese cuisine and Cantonese cuisine.

It is thousands of years old; as old as shark fins!

Well, sharks have been around for more then 450 million years; presumably, so have their fins. But I'm a nit-picker.--Planetary 05:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

flavor

Shark fin by itself has very slight or no flavor; the soup relies entirely on the chicken broth for flavor, though the shark fin provides a unique texture that is soft and gelatinous yet crunchy. i took this out, judging from the number of dishes -other- than soup that use sharkfin or even sharkfin extract for flavoring. the general opinion of most chinese (myself included) is that sharkfin has an enormously umami flavor; many chinese (myself included) can identify this taste quite distinctively. --shrimppesto —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shrimppesto (talk • contribs) on 06:40, 15 June 2005.

I have to respectfully disagree. I'm from Hong Kong and even my parents are of the opinion that shark fin by itself has little flavor. The fact that many dishes uses sharkfin doesn't necessarily mean anything taste-wise, keeping in mind that the price of the ingredient itself can be factor in its use of a dish, especially in a restaurant. Compare for example with Japanese fugu (which has been disputed by various parties as being rather bland to exceptional), or edible gold flakes (which is definitely tasteless and nothing beyond an expensive garnish). It is also worth remembering that most preparation of shark fin involves braising the fins in flavorful liquids, so the flavor you tasted is likely to have come from there. (Like tofu for example.)

For the Cantonese style of cooking, shark's fin is not an ingredient to add flavor rather to enhance the other flavors in the soup, add thickness and texture. Superior grade stocks of chicken,smoked ham and dried scallop are often used because the flavors are enhanced by adding the fin.

Do some real research on how it is eaten before you start on your longwinded ecowarrior diatribe about the bloodthirsty barbarism of the Chinese and their hideous eating habits. BTW, Google searching chineserecipe.com does not count as real research jerk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.149.253 (talk) 10:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

"Contraversy" section needs citation check and factual verification

The "animal-rights" section currently (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shark_fin_soup&oldid=65896663) contains some fairly serious claims:

• because of the lucrative profits, there are allegations of links to organized crime
• In Hong Kong, the oldest chain of restaurants specializing in shark fin soup has reportedly closed, citing lobbying by the animal rights groups as one of the main reasons.

"Allegations of links to organized crime", at the very least, can use some elaboration, such as what group it is (and where they are based, particularly what country/region), or possibly actual police cases where the plantiff was involved with the shark-fishing industry in some criminal manner. Otherwise this is just heresay and shouldn't belong in an encyclopedia. Even citation to a magazine (but no tabloids please) would be appreciated.

As for the thing about the closing of the "oldest chain of restaurants in Hong Kong specializing in shark fin soup", at least the name of the chain should be given. I'm personally a bit curious about this because just back in March 2006 I was in Hong Kong, and I had shark fin soup (with "whole" fins no less rather than just strands) in one of my meals in a restaurant. True, the restaurant doesn't "specialize in shark fin soup" and is certainly not the "oldest chain". But still, the fact that a different restaurant is still serving the soup at least makes me a little more skeptical about the claim. At worst, I would think that the alleged closed-down chain could've instead diversified to other delicacies or something. Again I want a citation check.

I would've actually marked the section with cleanup-tag {{unreferenced}}, except there is currently a reference section containing one citation source: an article on shark population in an issue of Science. I unfortunately don't have a means to get hold of that issue at the moment, so to be fair I haven't marked the section with the cleanup tag. Still, note that the referenced article was about shark populations in the Northwest Atlantic, and it is a scientific publication we're taling about; so I'm somewhat doubtful that it would be talking much about Hong Kong restaurants or organized crime, at least nothing specific (or if it did, no doubt the article would've cited their sources unlike this article).

Finally, can someone also consider looking into this statement:

• They also raise questions on the medical harm from the consumption of high levels of toxic mercury reportedly found in shark fins.

While I do recall that there were news a few years ago about high concentration of mercury in a number of fishes (which included shark, and I think swordfish and maybe other fatty fishes which I don't remember exactly), I question whether the level of mercury is same between shark meat vs. shark fin, especially since the fin is mostly cartrilage. For all I know it might be even higher than meat, but still, this should be looked into, and again a citation to a source on this statement would be welcome.

24.19.185.92 04:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems that to me, "finning" is done by fisherman that catch tuna and shark happen to be a by product of their catch. Therefore, people should stop eating tuna rather than shark's fin soup if they really want to save the sharks. Anyway, the shark is not an endangered species according to UN Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wildlife. icecold1 11:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yamagani seems to want to present one side of the shark's fin soup story and completely revert my contribution when I show the fact that shark's fin soup is not the factor that contribute to the killing of sharks. Many of stefan's claim in the article is not substantiated by facts (please cite your source to all your claims). icecold1 03:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no claims in the article (see history), I reverted what you wrote once , I have not contributed to this article (yet), you have one article supporting your claims as facts, that article was a very well written and in my opinion very much POW and twisting the facts. I will find other sources and update this page later. Meanwhile your text now reads like a essay, it is not fitting in a encyclopedia, but I do not have time to fix it now. Stefan 05:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least I have one article that support my claim as facts, better than none in the previous writing. Anyway, the author of that article also cite his source. It appears that experts cannot agree on the same things either. This being the case, I think it is only right to present two side of the story. Please note that I did not delete the contribution of others, as I believe that they are entitle to their view. I am merely presenting another side of the story and let the reader decide for themselves. With regard to your claim that the piece of article is pov and twisting the fact, I can equally claim that other article cited are of the same - pov and twisting the fact. I for one do not believe that just by stop eating shark's fin soup will stop the trend of the shark's extinction (if the extinction of the shark is to be believed). It is the demand for the "meat of dogfishes, smoothhounds, catsharks, skates and rays" that contribute to the extinction of sharks, not forgetting the demand for tuna. Whenever somebody told me that they do not consume shark's fin soup because of the extinction reason, I will always reply tat that is good news for me as I get to eat their portion.icecold1 06:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I did not even revert you, why do you say I did? True, experts can not agree, it is very hard to count sharks and it is very easy to say anything. At least you agree that sharks are in the process of beeing extinct, that is a start, even though you do not think shark fin soup have anything to do with it. See the external links they substantiate at least some of the claims in this article, at the same time can you please rewrite in wikipedia style, you do not say "However, according to Giam Choo Hoo, in his article" in wikipedia, that sounds like a essay, please write it in encyclopeadic style. Stefan 08:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Stefan, I think there is a misunderstanding here. If you look at what I had written, I mentioned a Mr/Ms Yamagani that revert my edit. However, I believe this Mr/Ms Yamagani revert by using your version. What I did say is that in your version, it is only one sided presentation. Therefore, it is 2 matters altogether - (1) Mr/Ms Yamagani revert my edit, not you, and (2)your version presents only one side of the story. Hope this clarify.

The other thing is that I never agree to the claim that sharks are in the process of extinction. What I wrote is "I for one do not believe that just by stop eating shark's fin soup will stop the trend of the shark's extinction (if the extinction of the shark is to be believed)". Please note the coments in bracket as I doubt that the claim of shark extinction is to be believed. Hope this clarify.icecold1 09:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, fine, nevermind. I read "Many of stefan's claim in the article is not substantiated by facts (please cite your source to all your claims)." in a different way and saying "It is the demand for the "meat of dogfishes, smoothhounds, catsharks, skates and rays" that contribute to the extinction of sharks, as to say that there are other reason for the extinction of sharks, but again, nevermind, I will do some research and actuially do some updates to the article now!!! Stefan 13:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I intended to revert the statement "This make way for other dinners who are interested in consuming the shark's fin soup.", but due to not reading the diff correctly I rolled back both your contributions, for which I apologize. The first statement is clearly not neutral - they obviously didn't do it for that reason - so I've removed it again. I've no objection to the inclusion of the rest of the information now I've looked at it, but it seems given too much space in relation to the rest of the argument, and I'm concerned that "This is the preliminary findings of a review made with the assistance of shark experts" is rather too nebulous - which review? which experts?. For a contentious claim like this I'd like to see more than one reference. Is Giam Choo Hoo an acknowledged expert on shark-fin soup? If not, his name shouldn't be given such prominence in the article. That said, I'd like to see more citations for the live finning argument too. Yomangani^talk 14:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC) (The editor formerly known as Mr/Ms Yamagani)

Giam is a member of UN Convention on International Trade of Wildlife Fauna and Flora (CITES) Animal committee and a member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, England. icecold1 09:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The more research I do, the more I am convinced that those claims of shark's extinction, "finning" etc. are all bullshit, made up by some people that could not tolerate the cultural practice of others. icecold1 07:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

(In reply to the above post) Wow... I can't believe you. Have you ever watched one of the multiple videos of sharks being butchered and thrown back into the sea? There is just so much evidence, it blows my mind that anyone can even think what you wrote. I am inclined to believe that either 1)You have never left your house and have no access to the internet or televsion, or 2) You were born yesterday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.32.196.213 (talk) 05:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I've done some work on balancing the article. The two sides of the argument need to be given equal weight - somebody reading the article shouldn't be able to detect the opinions of the editors. Yomangani^talk 09:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

A section on the market for shark fin soup would be good - as the article stands we don't know who eats it, whether demand in those markets is rising or falling etc. Yomangani^talk 12:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, Yomangani's balance edition is not very balance as he deleted the paragraph that cited Cites whicvh mentioned that only 3 type of sharks are endangered. Also, the survey about comsumption in shark's fin soup in Thailand and Singapore declined is without and verifiable source. If there is no verifiable source, it should be taken out.icecold1 13:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It was taken out - please read the article before reverting. I also added sections about the probable causes for decline of species and corrected spelling mistakes. Yomangani^talk 13:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with you editing spelling mistake. I read the article, but still my point remain - the CITES source and the non-verifiable of the survey in Singapore and Thailand. If you insist of putting unverifiable source, than I think it is only fair that other editor point this out and let other readers be aware of it. Also, what have Steve Irwin have to do with shark's fin soup? If he choose to walk out of Chinese restaurant just because they serve shark's fin soup, fine, but there are millions of others who continue to go to those restaurants and eat shark's fin soup. This is a fact. Therefore, if you chose to write Steve Irwin's walk out, I will write others who continue to walk in - myself included. icecold1 04:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You obviously haven't read it: the Thailand claim has been removed (because it was controversial information not verifiable from multiple reliable sources). I would like figures of the millions who continue to enjoy shark fin soup - in fact, I asked for this information to be included (see above). Steve Irwin is mentioned because he was a high profile opponent. If a high profile supporter can be found please include that information too. The article needs to be neutral in tone which means not giving undue weight to any argument. Your version clearly reads pro-finning. CITES is at the end of the day a trade convention subject to lobbying pressure, so I have removed that in favour of the IUCN figures, but stated that finning is not cited as a major factor for decline in all species. Yomangani^talk 10:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Your question for information of the millions who continue to enjoy shark's fin soup is a stupid one. There are 1.3 billion Chinese and many Chinese overseas worldwide, therefore millions are infact an understatment. If not, there is no need for people like Steve Irwin and Yau Min to prmote against eating shar's fin soup. Therefore if you think Steve Irwin warrant to be mentioned just because you think he is a high profile opponent, which I am sure many have not heard of him before, then by mentioning the other millions who continue to eat shark's fin soup, which is a fact, is equally alright. Also, you mentioned that CITES is subject to lobbying presurre, let me tell you this, lobbying is everywhere, including the US government. Therefore, by deleting their sourse, you are in fact having a POV contribution.121.6.7.32 08:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

How nice of you to characterise my request for market statistics as stupid. If it is stupid then it should be easy for a smart editor to provide figures from reputable sources to help the unfortunately stupid among us. Regardless of that such statistics shouldn't be in the controversy section - what is controversial about it? I'm not sure why you want to include the CITES statistics, but I've left them in for now. Yomangani^talk 02:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned, there are millions, or in fact ten of millions, of people eating shark's fin soup. To provide statistics on it is probably not feasible as this is a general statement. Do you think any organisation will compile such statistics? For example, can you provide statistics of the number of people that eat rice? or bread for that matter? or how many people drink coffee? You know the number will run into millions, but I doubt that you can pin point how many. If such statistics is not under the controversy section, then why should Steve rwin be inside it? He just walk out of the restaurant that serve shark's fin soup, millions of others just walk into it and continue to have their soup. Lastly, I include CITES statistics because if gives the readers an alternative view. Just like you inclue IUCN figure, which I think is just one-sided.icecold1 07:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Check the article on rice, see the last part of the FIRST sentence "which together provide more than one fifth of the calories consumed by humans" and then the reference, "Smith, Bruce D. The Emergence of Agriculture. Scientific American Library, A Division of HPHLP, New York, 1998." !!! So yes such statistics exists, if you care to try to find it, thanks for such a good example, and no the bread article is not as good, but I'm sure simmilar references exists for bread also. Stefan 09:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure if I understand your point above. My point is that there is no statistics on how many people actually consume rice, bread or coffee for that matter. In your point above, you are talking about the "calories consumed by humans", which are two different matters. How much calaories does rice provide for human being can be studied and measured through some lab test, which has nothing to do with how many people on this planet earth consume rice. Furthermore, how do you define the number of people that consume rice? For example, while I may eat rice one day, I consume bread the other. So am I a rice consumer or bread consumer? It does not matter, as we all know that people out there consume rice and bread (unless you disagree with such obvious fact). Thus, by saying that millions consume shark's fin soup will be no difference, or else, why bother to have the contraversy of eating shark's fin soup?

I tried to looked at the Bruce Smith reference but it seems that it is a book which I have no access to.icecold1 09:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The point is that statistics do exist for the consumption those foodstuffs. For shark fin soup as a luxury food item, the potential market is not just the number of people who come from a culture where it is eaten - it is at best a fraction of those who can afford it within that culture. The article would be a lot better with some analysis of market size and trend (though not in the controversy section!), but your addition is just your guess which is original research. Underestimating the market is just as useless as overestimating it. By the way, you'll be in breach of the three revert rule and will be blocked if you revert again. Yomangani^talk 09:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed Irwin as he has nothing to do with shark's fin soup contraversy

Please sign your comments.

why not, the sections describes how some famous people show support for one side of this controversity of eating sharks fin soup, Steve Irwin is (or was) a famous person with a interest in conservation, he has a article in wikipedia and he gets 1,430,000 hits in google, "Giam Choo Hoo" gets 148 hits in google and does not have an article, I think Steve deserves one sentence??? I will revert you. Stefan 09:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me, then I just add in my comment. You write yours and I write mine. icecold1 11:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Just because Steve Irwin is a famous person does not mean that he should be in the article. He can walk out of the restaurant as this is his freedom. However, many others just ignore him and continue to eat the shark's fin soup. The restaurants contuiue to do their business.icecold1 07:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Now look, I do nt want to go into an edit war. But i strongly feel that if you have to put Steve Irwin's act into the contravery, then it is only right for others to point out the fact that there are millions of others in this planet that ignore him and continue to consume shark's fin soup. This is a fact and cannot be changed.icecold1 09:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

When a famous person walks out of a restaurant because they serve shark fin soup, it can be called controversial - hence why it is under the controversy section. Again, if there is a high profile supporter of shark fin soup they could and SHOULD be included in that section. What shouldn't be in there are uncited market statistics and opinion. Yomangani^talk 09:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Just because he walk out of the restaurant does not mean that it is controversial. As I said, there are millions of dinners who walk in for there shark's fin soup. icecold1 09:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It obviously is. With your argument we would remove the statement from Giam Choo Hoo or add the "However, millions of people continue not to make the same statement". I have no objection to the inclusion of the "millions of diners" (one n) statement if it is cited and included in the appropriate place. Yomangani^talk 10:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

So where do you think is the "appropriate" place? By the way, you are free to add the statement "However, millions of people continue not to make the same statement". As I say, reader have the right to decide for themselves what they read, but the important thing is that they DO read it. So please go ahead to add in your statement while I add in mine.icecold1 10:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

As I've said before, the appropriate place is in a section on the market - which would be beneficial for the quality of this article. Unsurprisingly, your citation doesn't support the statement you've once again put in the wrong place. It says there is a potential market of hundreds of millions - no mention of the actual market or restaurants. And a dinner can't walk, but a diner can. If you are constantly going to replace a statement removed and disagreed with by all the other editors, please have the correct spelling at least. Yomangani^talk 11:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you please explain what do you mean by "Unsurprisingly, your citation doesn't support the statement you've once again put in the wrong place"? English is not my mother tongue and I cannot understand you clearly. As for the citation, which market or restaurant is not important. As long as those people want to eat shark fin soup, they walk into a restaurant. Similarly, do you want to cite which restaurant Steve irwin walked out? And thanks for pointing my spelling mistake. 121.6.175.129 14:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I mean that adding a citation that mentions a potential market of hundreds of millions doesn't support a statement which says hundreds of millions of people enjoy shark fin soup in restaurants. Once again in the wrong place referred to you continually adding this info to the controversy section. The use of "market" above was to describe the demographics not to refer to a street market selling food. And by the way, avoiding a block by not logging in is liable to earn you a longer block. Yomangani^talk 16:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

it seems that Ymangani is contradicting himself for the above point. If "potential" market doesn't support a statement which says hundreds of millions of people, then the estimation of 10-100 million shark being slaughted should also not be mentioned since it is just an estimation. Furthermore, in the other paragraph, it was also mentioned that the numbers are difficult to come by since nobody counts the number of sharks. So why the double standard? Anyway, the estimation is a conservative estimation, the actual number should be higher as one fin can probably make more than 10 bowl of shark fin soup.

If Yomangani insist that all writen sentence must be from verifiable source, then why delete the citation I quoted. Also, please provide citation for the following :

1) Finning is vigorously opposed by animal welfare groups; both on moral grounds and also because it is listed as one of the causes for the rapid decline of global shark populations, in some cases by 99% over the last 50 years;

2)According to wildlife conservationists, much of the trade in sharks' fins is derived from fins cut from living sharks; this process is called finning;

3) leading conservation ecologists and fishery experts to predict widespread shark extinction in 10 or 20 years;

4) The decline in shark populations is debated, some claiming that they have seriously declined others that they have not;

5) New laws have been passed to prevent finning; though much of the international waters continue to be unregulated. The United States recently issued a ban on finning, applicable only to U.S.-registered vessels, even in U.S. territorial waters; and shark fins cannot be imported into the USA without entire carcasses. International fishing authorities are in the process of banning shark fishing (and finning) in the Atlantic ocean and Mediterranean Sea. However shark fishing and finning continues unabated in the Pacific and Indian ocean;

6) Large-scale removal of sharks may severely unbalance the ecosystem of warm seas by allowing some species of large or middle-sized fish to multiply or grow bigger: for an example see grouper;

7) Since many countries do not allow shark finning there is no reliable count for the numbers taken in the shark fin trade and thus it is hard to prove the claims on either side of the argument (which countries do and do not allow shark finning?)

So if there is no citation, should I delete all these away?icecold1 12:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The estimates are from quoted from sources giving the lowest estimate and the highest estimate, and they are not calculations made by me to support a point of view. If you can find higher or lower estimates from reliable sources please replace them. The problem with the personal calculations you added are

1. they are original research - the source mentions nothing about restaurants, how many sharks fins there are to a bowl, how often people eat the soup, and, as I recall, it specifically says "potential market" in the article, so citing that figure as actual market figures is again original research. If shark fin soup is expensive, I would have thought it would have been out of reach for most people (but since I haven't found a source for that I haven't added it - see how it works?)
2. even if they were cited from reliable sources they are in the wrong place - the market statistics shouldn't be under the controversy section. The addition of notable supporters of shark fin soup was a good addition here, but market information isn't.

It is more friendly to add {{fact}} tags to those statements, but yes, some of them can be deleted if not cited (I'd say 4, 6, and 7 don't require citation as they aren't disputed as far as I know). I removed your statement because for the reasons above, not because it was it wasn't cited. Yomangani^talk 13:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Really, I at least for one, dispute those claim for 4,6,7, unless i see a citation from reliable source. As to your point "If shark fin soup is expensive, I would have thought it would have been out of reach for most people (but since I haven't found a source for that I haven't added it - see how it works?)", there is no need to see if it is expensive or cheap to estimate how many people can afford to eat it. The 10-100 million shark slaughted as mentioned is specifically for their fin, so unless there are other usage for shark fin, then all these must hae been consumed (see how it work?)icecold1 13:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do see how it works - that tells us (unless there is other usage for fins) that 10-100 million sharks have their fins utilized for human consumption every year: exactly what it says in the estimate figures. What it doesn't tell us is the size of the market, how many times a week it is eaten, how many bowls come from a shark's fin, whether it is eaten at a restaurant or at home. That is original research.

Refer to your questions above - (1) how many times a week it is eaten - it does not matter since the estimated figure is given for a year, so you know it is 10-100 million ESTIMATED figure for a year, the time frame is a YEAR (or else, one can continue to ask for figure for a month, a day, an hour, a decade... it will never end), (2) how many bowls come from a shark's fin - ask a chef and he can tell you, (3) whether it is eaten at a restaurant or at home - does it matter whether it is eaten at home or restaurant? The important thing is that it is being eaten.... does it mean that it is better to eat it in restaurant than home? How does that help in the ESTIMATING the sharks that were being slaughtered for their fin? icecold1 12:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

So, basically, you are saying that the estimate figure is enough information and all the extra original research you added isn't needed. I'm glad we agree, will you remove it or shall I? Yomangani^talk 14:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

My answer to your point above is, yes, and I will delete it, provided you leave my citation alone on the esitmation of the number of diners. That is an estimate, the 10-100 millions IS AN ESTIMATE! icecold1 06:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You really dispute the statement: "The decline in shark populations is debated, some claiming that they have seriously declined others that they have not"? I thought that was what you were arguing about. Without that we would could state either "Shark populations have not declined" or "Shark populations have seriously declined". Which of those statements is right? Yomangani^talk 13:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

First, i am not arguing anything, I just think that the article is POV with people against eating shark fin soup trying to write it in such a way that portray a picture as though shark fin soup is the cause of the decline in shark population (if this is to be believed). If you look at the article, all the points are written with an intention to discourage the eating of shark fin soup by some people (maybe you are included) that try to impose their own culture onto others. Second, I put a citation after the sentence ".......declined others that they have not", but you are the one that removed it. What I am saying is that there is no citation for the first part of the statement "some claiming that they have seriously declined "icecold1 12:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

And I'm saying that since the statement isn't disputed it doesn't need citations. It's hardly anti-finning to write "The decline in shark populations is debated, some claiming that they have seriously declined others that they have not". Yomangani^talk 14:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I am disputing it now, so citation is needed. icecold1 06:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

How can you dispute that??? See WP:POINT. Anyway that was the reson I put that ref in there, that does not reference the whole sentence, I moved it now, ok, your ref is not that strong though, if you are even planning at playing the POINT game, I would suggest to find a better one???????? Stefan 14:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I mean, I am disputing the part sentence "The decline in shark populations is debated, some claiming that they have seriously declined....", but since now a citation is there, I am not disputing it. icecold1 01:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Added some references, but this is getting to be a waste of time. We try to make a encyclopedia which is correct and is WP:NPOV (please read ALL of that page and think about it), what are you trying to do, can you please list what you want of this article, remeber this is NOT a essay! Essays you can write in Straits Times. This is not a place to argue your point of view, this is an encyclopedia . Stefan 02:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You kept saying that you are trying to " make a encyclopedia which is correct and is WP:NPOV ", but all the points that you have written are one sided until I added in the other side of the story, so who are more POV? For example, you argue that many shark are killed through process of finning, which is one sided until I pointed out otherwise. You mentioned that people like Yao Ming support the not eating of shark fin soup movement, it looks as if it is a "correct" thing to do, until I added in famous people like Thaksin eat it as well. A NPOV article should have both side of a story. If you want to project your view that eating shark fin soup contribute to the deline of the shark and wanted to discourage eating shark fin soup, you can write it to Strait time also. icecold1 12:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Please show me the points that I added before you started adding your POV, please add history diffs. Stefan 04:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The article was non-NPOV before you added some information (but that POV wasn't added by me). However, you pushed it completely the other way which is why I edited some of your contributions. Yomangani^talk 14:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I am glad that you admit that the article was "non-NPOV", which is exactly what I am saying. And it is my pleasure to add some information to make it NPOV.icecold1 06:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I am sorry you feel that this is getting to be a waste of time, me too. However, I did not ask for all those citation until Yomangani deleted my edition and talked about original research and needed citation. I am not about to delete those contribution as I always maintain that you write yours and I write mine. icecold1 12:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No, this just isn't the way Wikipedia works. Please read the policies. Yomangani^talk 14:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I went to the article you cited, but I could not find in the article that can verify your claim that "Finning is vigorously opposed by animal welfare groups; both on moral grounds and also because it is listed as one of the causes for the rapid decline of global shark populations, in some cases by 99% over the last 50 years, leading conservation ecologists and fishery experts to predict widespread shark extinction in 10 or 20 years.[3] ", can you please point me to the correct paragraph? Thanks. Also, in the article, it was stated that "An estimated 50% of all sharks taken are caught unintentionally as 'bycatch' in other fisheries Shark bycatches are often caught in longline fisheries such as tuna and swordfish." Maybe to protect the sharks, you would like to lobby for your countrymen to stop eating tuna and swordfish. icecold1 13:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Who do you think are 'my' country men? Where do you think I live?

It does not matter who your countryman is and where do you live, unless your country citizen does not eat tuna or swordfish....icecold1 06:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You asked me to lobby for my country men, thinking that I live in the west I'm sure, I do not live in the west, actually I live in the same country as you do!! (ok, can not be 100% sure, but 99% :-) ), and please look at the POV tuna article, maybe you should go and edit it, stating that tuna is not endangered either?? I seen no battle over that, no matter which country is eating tuna or which old culture is eating it, that is a lousy defence for exterminating a species. Stefan 14:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you are wrong, I asked you to lobby for your country men as long as your countrymen eat tuna and swordfish. If you stay in the same country as I do, better still, I am not aware that there is any lobbying going around for not eating tuna (sushi lover will probably protest your protest). I have not read the article on tuna because I am not iterested in tuna, at least for the time being. Whether it is a lousy defence for exterminating a species (which in this case, I presume you mean shark or any other animals) is probably not up to you to decide. Moreover, I am not defending the exterminaton of a species, which I wanted to emphaise here, as I myself is against it. What I am against, is the imposing of one's POV on others culture. icecold1 01:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, good because I'm not agains anyones culture, I'm just against exterminating animals, which you seams to be againts also. Stefan 13:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, at least we agree on this one. I am against exterminating animals, who the hell on earth we think we are to exterminate other living creature for our own consumption? For that matter, I am against finning as well. it is just that those people who try to push the saving of the sharks targeted finning and shark fin soup for the decline in shark population just because they do not eat shark fin soup themself, effeectively imposing their own POV on others culture. As can be seens from all our contributions and research, the fishing of tuna contriute to about 50% f the shark by catch, so why not lobby for others to stop eating tuna to save the shark? The answer is f course, it is their culture to eat tuna so that they think it is alright to continuing eating it, but it is just equally damaging to the population decline of the shark!icecold1 01:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes and I do, I'm not against shark fin soup and shark fin soup only, I'm against all fishing that is a threat to the eco systems, and I do not eat fish when I can help it, I argued agains the killing of whales that had the same effect on the whale population in the atlantic long time ago and that I think we are coming to for shark and tuna population in all oceans. I think tuna is even more at risk that shark, but this is a article about shark fin soup, and not tuna, this is not a place to push POV.

So you admit that you are pushing for non-eating of shark fin soup. As I mentioned above, a NPOV article should present two side of the story, not one-sided as you (or some others did). I am not pushing any POV, I myself is against excessive killing of whales, sharks, and other animals as well. What I am not agreeable is that people, especially those in the West, try to impose their own POV on others culture, in this case, by targeting shark fin soup (simply because they do not eat shark fin soup themself and therefore does not hurt them). They probably will not target eating of tuna, simply because they DO EAT tuna, even if the fishing of tuna contribute to 50% of the shark bycatch.icecold1 06:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally yes, I push that POV, but in wikipedia I try not to and do not think I have, but I think you have pushed your POV. Stefan 14:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not push any POV, I ust want to present two side of the story, there is a difference here. So back to my point, how can an article be NPOV when it only present one side of the argument without presenting the other side? You think that the article is NPOV simply because it coincide with your POV, but for a reader like me who reads it, it is completely POV as it just present half-truth. Take finning for example, the way the artcle presented it is as if majority of the fins are gotten through finning, but Giam's article in The Straits Times clearly stated that t is not the case and that the perception is wrong. However, this piece of information was never put into the article, which to me, is totally POV. Therefore, by adding the other side of the story, it balance the article. So you see, whether an article is NPOV or not depends who are writting it and who are reading it. icecold1 01:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, here is where we disagree, I'm sure that the shark population is declining and I'm sure shark fin soup is part (not all) of the problem, the same way as I'm sure the earth is round, now there are references from people much more famous than any of the reference we have in this article stating that the earth is actually flat, now that is wrong and can be proven wrong today, but since 'Giam Choo Hoo' states that since there are so many shark that is not endangered it is fine to eat shark fin soup without guilt we write that here also, he also claims that finning hardly exists, to bad that we can not prove either, OK fine, now since that is settled, can we please try to write a good article instead of and essay, can you please fix up the text you have written, make it nice and be resonable, I think Yomangani is doing massive edits now and he is good at it, and he is very fair, give him a chance, do not just revert what he does, I'm sure he will do a very good job of making this article NPOV and worthy of being in wikipedia which has not really been the case so far. Stefan 13:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As I always maintained, as long as the article presents two side of the story, it is an article that is NPOV, and I have no problem. Since as you mentioned above, we cannot prove either side of the story, therefore in my view, both side of the story should be included and let the reade decide for themself whether to believe or not. This, I believe, is truely NPOV. icecold1 01:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thirdly, to Yomangani, I know that my reference is wrongly put, it is only a reference to the first half the sentence, but I think I have read somewhere that we only put references at end of sentence, is that right or wrong? and to icecold1, this is why you can not find the info for the last half of the sentence in the page I referenced.

OK, tried to find what I'm looking for but can not find anything, think I'm remebering the WP:MOS stating that references should be after the dot, not before, but that is different, sorry my fault. Stefan 14:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This mean that the sentence "Finning is vigorously opposed by animal welfare groups; both on moral grounds and also because it is listed as one of the causes for the rapid decline of global shark populations, in some cases by 99% over the last 50 years, leading conservation ecologists and fishery experts to predict widespread shark extinction in 10 or 20 years.[3]" is not verifiable. Anyone can just claim that he/she read somewhere but cannot cite the source. I can use the same trick as well. icecold1 06:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not write that, if it is wrong, change it, I can not find that statement either, I think some one said that, if it is correct I do not know, but I think it is more correct that stating that the shark population is not affected by shark fin soup, therefore I will not change it, you do. Stefan 14:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I will delete it as per your request.icecold1 01:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Fourthly, please check again, I have not editied this page and have not added any of the statements that we are now discussing before you started. I think all I have done is reword and add references to the existing article. Stefan 04:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If I wrongly said that you edited something which you did not, I apologise as I did not go through the entire history of the edit. icecold1 06:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the only edit I made to this article before your first edit, not really a POV pusing edit IMHO. Stefan 14:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, please keep your campaigning ideas to yourself. Yomangani^talk 14:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Precisely, therefore as long as the article present two side of the story, it is NPOV. icecold1 06:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Read the latest article and think that the article is well-balanced now. icecold1 01:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Good, what is missing now is much more about the actual soup, I tried yesterday to find references of the history, but can not find anything good, I have heard that it was 'invented' or started to be eaten by some emperor long time ago and that is one of the resons that it is so highly regarded, but I can not find anything good as references. Where is it from, i.e. which chinese province, also can not find any consistent data on the net, how is it prepared? I found at least 2 different ways! not sure which is most common. Stefan 01:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

There is some information on that in some of the sources used, but nothing reliable. Aside from that what is still missing is references for uses in Chinese medicine and as an aphrodisiac, nutritional data, and less importantly IMO some information of regulation on trade within China. All these are lacking reliable sources - the nutrition information we had came from a recipe site, a teenager's blog, and a self submission article site. Yomangani^talk 02:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we have to look at chinese cooking recipe book and chinese cooking history book in Chinese language. With regard to the actual soup, i should know a thing or two, given that my mother cook the dish during chinese new year, and my brother is a chef. But of course, I cannot just write those things down as it will be deemed original research. icecold1 08:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

About about you work on some of the fake controversy sections that riddle Wikipedia instead of trifling with a legitimate one? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 18:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I wonder how many sharks were saved by the length of time icecold1 has had to spend standing on his soapbox rather than munching on his favourite dish.1812ahill (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)