Text and/or other creative content from this versionofShark fin soup was copied or moved into Shark finning with this edit on 16:55, 27 January 2012. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Shark fin soup. Any such comments may be removedorrefactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Shark fin soup at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Mount Allison University supported by Canada Education Program and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q4 term. Further details are available on the course page.
Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
on 14:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Can anyone provide the nutritional value of shark fin? Just the shark fin, not shark fin soup. Kalandra 18:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
http://www.nutrientfacts.com/foodpages/nutritionfacts/nutritionfacts_shark_fin_soup.htm provides information on nutritional values of Shark Fin Soup. They appear to be lower than normal vegetable soups: http://www.nutrientfacts.com/searchfood.exe?var=5&word=Vegetarian+Vegetable+Soup&x=33&y=8 I'll go ahead and insert it to the article. Richardofoakshire (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Cleared controversial information after checking data, verified refs. Richardofoakshire (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
I question the factual accuracy of the statement
It contradicts my personal knowledge about how imitation shark fin soup is usually sold. I've witnessed the soup being sold by street vendors (years ago) and in restaurants (more recently). I've never seen it sold as canned soup in any of the Chinese communities I've been to. I believe it is almost certainly false to describe it as "usually sold in cans".
Imitation shark fin soup is known as 碗仔翅 in Chinese. A Chinese Wikipedia page exists on the subject [2]. --71.175.23.226 20:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I also question the accuracy of this section. In addition to the previous poster's remarks, the line about flavoring imitation sharks fin with chicken broth, ham and mushrooms is silly because those are the same ase ingredients to flavor real sharks fin soup. If you are making an imitation obviously you would use the same ingredients as the original wherever possible! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.149.253 (talk) 10:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
(I'm all in favor of preserving sharks from going extinct) Isnt there some info. of its use in Chinese traditional medicine for shark fin? (Of course all the reason why sharks should be protected until the stocks replenish.) -Bill
April 23, 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.98.127.45 (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC).Reply
-University Med Student —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.96.207 (talk) 05:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
This article has an almost comical lack of balance. Three medium-length paragraphs on the soup itself; ten paragraphs, some quite long, on the 'controversy' - and even the three relevant paragraphs aren't without mention of the same. It strains credulity to believe that the history and culture surrounding this unique food item are somehow subordinate, a mere side note, to 21st century hand-wringing environmental activism. This ridiculous situation is insulting to the reader and to the cuisine which produced this unusual dish.
I would highly suggest that the 'controversy' section be shortened to a brief summary, with the bulk of it being moved / merged into another, more appropriate article - one on sharks or Animal Rights controversies, for example. As it stands, it's little better than pushy special-interest propaganda.
Drlegendre (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
--210.188.139.188 (talk) 05:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Due to popularity of Shark fin in Chinese world, Sharks are increasingly in danger of becoming extinct. We need to add this information to the article. --Korsentry 05:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)
The articles twice makes false claims of the IUCN only having 3 sharks listed as needing proctection and many are increasing in population, this is a lie and the source is more than a little unreliable a quick check on the IUCN redlist shows this. Surely this is bias and should be checked out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattshark (talk • contribs) 16:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
I tried to address this by adding a quote from a CITES document that balances this, unfortunately another editor has decided to remove it yet leave the out of date and misleading link to a press article.
I think a published CITES report trumps a press article, but I'd be happy for both to be removed. Nick mitchener (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
This article is more about the dried product Shark fin, then the soup which contains it as an ingredient. Shouldn't this article be split? 20:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
What does the bit about the eco-documentary "shark waters" add to the article? sounds like advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.247.10 (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
This article is perhaps quite biased.
Over 100 million sharks are killed every year, a portion of which due to the demand for shark fin soup.[33] Major declines in shark populations have been recorded in recent years—some species have been depleted by over 90% over the past 20–30 years with a population decline of 70% not being unusual.[34] Only a small amount of the shark is actually kept. This is done in a process called finning where the fins of the shark is cut from living sharks.[35] After the fins have been cut off, the remainder of the fish which is often still-living, is thrown back into the sea.[35] When returned to the ocean, the finless shark is unable to swim and sinks to the ocean bottom and dies a slow death.[36]
In reality, while I admit that catching sharks for their fins is a "brutal practice" and can be unnecessary, there are indeed many supermarkets selling shark meat now. Why does the article not mention this? Estheroliver (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
The section about cancer fighting abilities seems contradictory. First there is a statement that shark fins have cancer fighting abilities, followed by a statement (with a citation) that they do not. I marked the statement that they do have cancer fighting abilities as dubious, but if someone can provide a credible citation then the article should be changed to say that some people believe that it does, while others believe that it does not. --Meznaric (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
<ref>Radio Times, 15–21 January 2011 p.53</ref>
The reference is not clear if it is referring to the magazine or the radio program. Once that is established. Relevant information using citation templates or the equivalent is needed relative to the type of source being used. It looks like the magazine is being referenced, but would a TV/radio listing guide would have such details (I'm not familiar with the UK) about a program?
"Not only is the dish bland and gelatinous, a status symbol...the trade is sickening, with sharks finned alive, then thrown back into the sea to die slowly."
The above opinion cited from the "Radio Times" in question is not attributed to a specific person, which is needed for neutrality. On a more minor point, if it can be sourced and attributed, it probably should not be in the lead. Bagumba (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
This appears to be an advocacy site; it should be used cautiously if at all. Allens (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Why not do that Bagumba then, rather than just remove the citation I gave to a CITES report but leave the out of date and incorrect press report? Nick mitchener (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hi Bagumba, I decided to be bold and deleted the bit about only 3 of the 400 species being threatened. There is still a link to the article where he talks about finning but although I believe that information to be out of date as well I don't have a link to a verified article that disputes that. Mr Choo's bias is clear, and CITES themselves are generally very slow to react to anything marine. Personally I would prefer to soo this article cleaned up completely but at least I have removed the most misleading bit. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick mitchener (talk • contribs) 01:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
The lead of a cultural food item should not be dominatedbycoatrack items. The sourced specifics should be moved to the body of article or possibly other articles where they can be summarized here.—Bagumba (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'm quite happy for all sourced details of shark populations at risk to be removed, but instead of that my quote from a CITES document has been removed but a link to a misleading and out of date article has been allowed to remain.
Rather than this being a soapbox for animal rights it is a propoganda tool for those in favour of finning. Nick mitchener (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
However, research has shown that the vast majority of shark species are gaining in population and not endangered; CITES lists only 4 out of 400 species as needing protection. Furthermore, shark finning contributes to a small proportion of sharks caught worldwide; most sharks are caught in European nations as bycatch, for sport, or for their meat.[29] As a result, the movement against shark fins have been variously described as misled, reliant on populist rhetoric, or Sinophobic[30][31].
It is popularly believed and widely reported that only a small amount of the shark is actually kept, and that during finning, the fins are cut from living sharks.[32] After the fins have been cut off, the remainder of the fish, which is often still alive, is thrown back into the sea.[32] However, Giam Choo Hoo, the longest-serving member of CITES, reports that such claims are misleading. "The perception that it is common practice to kill sharks for only their fins - and to cut them off whilst the sharks are still alive - is wrong.... The vast majority of fins in the market are taken from sharks after their death." Indeed, the widely reported practice of cutting off fins from living sharks and throwing back into the sea only occurs in longline fishing vessels that are targeting other types of fish, such as tuna and swordfish.[33]
The above text was recently restored despite concerns tagged in the article and in edit summaries that details on shark finning are coat rack items for an article on the soup. This discussion serves to discuss any misunderstandings. While finning should be mentioned as it discussed in reliable sources in relation to the soup, it should be a brief summary about the relationship between finning and the soup. It does not warrant a direct quotes on the debate over finning, nor are details on the debate needed when there is a separate article on the subject.—Bagumba (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
As I mentioned earlier, if the Controversy section is required here (does it?), a single line like "refer to shark finning article" will avoid further contentious edit in this section. Josha68 (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
There is controversy over the practice of shark finning for the key ingredient of shark fin soup. Nevertheless, consumption of shark fin soup has risen dramatically with the middle class becoming more affluent, as Chinese communities around the world enjoy increasing income levels.[1][3][25] Environmental groups claim that finning has caused decline of shark species, which, as top predators in the ocean, are essential to the stability of oceanic ecosystems.[26][27] Fishing fleets catch an estimated 70 million sharks a year as of 2010.[10]
Above was the section before the edits in questions were added. What needs to be modified to make it more neutral. I believe a few sentences are warranted—not just a link—for those that dont want to go to another article.—Bagumba (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
There is controversy [between groups] over the practice of shark finning for the key ingredient of shark fin soup. [Neverthless,] consumption of shark fin soup has risen dramatically with the middle class becoming more affluent, as Chinese communities around the world enjoy increasing income levels.[1][3][25]
Environmental groups claim that finning has caused decline of shark species, which, as top predators in the ocean, are essential to the stability of oceanic ecosystems.[26][27] Fishing fleets catch an estimated 70 million sharks a year as of 2010.[10]
I think that we should keep it general, and not delve into the point of view of one side or the other, which has an article dedicated to where this certain controversy lies, namely the act of shark finning. And have the subsections "Types of shark used", "Trade", and this info here placed under the section "Market". --Cold Season (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
After some research I have edited the Bans section. Before it was said that the ban in china would take three years to be in effect. However form my sources the Bans are in place but are expected to take three years to be implicated because of the cultural impact the dish has. I also included more references to North american cities and states as to what they are doing. --Ab0304 (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO0BKe4p4yw --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
For the place of origin Japan is named. Nearly the entire article including the history deals with China. If the dish has its origins in Japan, this needs to be mentioned in the article. Otherwise it seems more likely that it originated in China.--83.171.173.45 (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
108.65.249.149 has made a huge number of rapid fire edits which contain at times acceptable copyediting and at other times problematic and eccentric POV. For example, all material sourced from the China Daily has been removed on the grounds that it is "Communist propaganda". Also all material has been removed that documents the highly salient fact that Chinese cuisine prizes texture as much as taste, and that shark fins have texture but little taste. Other problematic edits include this, this, this, this and many others. I have reverted the mess and advised the IP that they should seek consensus here on this talk page if they want to continue. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
It's true that finning the sharks, be they finned and then processed for meat or tossed away, leaves the shark to die, but the requirement that this must be explicitly stated eludes me. When you fish for anything in the seas and oceans you pull it out of the water and it either suffocates to death (almost all catches) or gets hacked-up alive (large fish). This is the same for sharks. Yes it cruel and wasteful, and yes it environmentally unsound, but why is my edit objectionable? -- Sjschen (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
If this is the only objection, then I will revert it back to my original edit and include the "leave it to die" indication. Note though there are many fishing operations that harvest the fins exclusively, sharks are also commonly harvested for food often in making surimi. I will alo note and reference this in the amending edit. -- Sjschen (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
An IP has made a large number of mostly problematic edits. While some acceptable copy editing has been included, many edits are questionable or more than questionable. Accordingly I have reverted the changes and invite the IP to discuss their concerns here and try to reach a consensus about the changes they would like to see. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
I moved this thread here from my Talk page.DrChrissy (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hello, what program do you use to scan? You are aware that "major cause of shark population population decline worldwide" is not advocacy, funding, or POV-advancement for PETA?
SundayRequiem (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
I reviewed the revisions before making the change and "major cause of shark population decline worldwide" is not stated in the reference given. On the contrary, it says that marine extinctions are caused by human activity; to suggest that the consumption of shark fin soup by Chinese communities worldwide leads to shark population decline is a statement someone from PETA would argue for. I think that may have been the reason why Sjschen removed it.
http://wildaid.org/sites/default/files/resources/EndOfTheLine2007US.pdf
SundayRequiem (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Stop putting statements with a citation that does not support the statement! 2600:1001:B008:CA7A:79F1:1228:2BBD:E22E (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose that Imitation shark fin soup be merged into shark fin soup. I think that the content in the Imitation Shark Fin Soup article can easily be explained in the context of shark fin soup, and the shark fin soup article is of a reasonable size that the merging of imitation shark fin soup will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. NeoBatfreak (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.