Jump to content

Talk:Asian carp

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vandalised

[edit]

Can someone fix the article - it's been vandalised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.162.53 (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Black carp

[edit]

If black carp have yet to be discovered outside of the ponds in which they have been bred, why does the black carp article discuss them having escaped in the wild? Suppafly 22:56, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)wtf

I have made several changes, hopefully bringing this somewhat more up to date. However, I am an extreme newbie (first posts today) so please let me know if I violated any protocols in any way. I'm not sure how to set up a reference section, or I would have done it here.

One note on a change that may take some explanation: I deleted the sentence on their escape from aquaculture ponds because of floods that occurred in the early 90's. It is easy to find references to this particular occurence in the media and sometimes even in the scientific literature. However, grass, bighead, and silver carps were all established in the Mississippi River basin prior to the 90s. While there are two documented cases where the fish did escape farms during flooding in the 90s, these can hardly be considered the original source of the fish. Escape from aquaculture (or research facilities, or from sewage treatment plants, where bighead and silver carps were also used) does not require flooding; there are many other ways that the fish could have escaped other than flooding, including but not limited to intentional dumping and negligence. Grass carp were intentionally stocked into systems where they could access riverine systems, sometimes directly into rivers. Carptracker 23:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be "Asian carps"

[edit]

Correct English would have this as Asian carps, because the plural of carp, when referring to more than one species, should be carps. (Much like fish and fishes) I don't know how to change the header.

Also, I am still not really happy with the first sentence. Carps are generally broken down into Asian carps (bighead, silver, grass, black, barbless, long spikyhead, etc.)and Indian carps (mrigal, rohu, catla, etc), and then further broken down into "major" and "minor" based largely on size. Seems like some discussion of this should be there, but I don't have time to do it right. I'm not enough of an expert on the ones that have not been introduced to the USA to do it right quickly. Carptracker 14:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This might be regional variation but in UK English carp and for that matter fish are always the correct plural, even in the context quoted. The title of this article looks odd and wrong to me. But I'm happy to leave it as it is as obviously enough people think otherwise. Naturenet | Talk 16:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that was the first thing I noticed, it must be a US thing although I think it's optional. If it is optional I think should be changed so that it correctly reflects international English usage, ie. Asian Carp. 87.114.66.248 (talk) 13:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This American agrees it should be 'carp' not 'carps.' I've never heard anyone refer to the plural as carps. Note there are articles on 'salmon,' 'fish', 'terrier,' 'carp' etc. but no articles on 'salmons,' 'fishes,' 'terriers' or 'carps.' Reading 'Asian carps' throughout the article is jolting and bizarre. Note even within the article it says 'Bighead and silver carps are the most important fish' not 'Bighead and silver carps are the most important fishes' Anonymous, Tue Dec 22 12:25:32 CST 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.68.170 (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can somebody please change it to 'Asian carp' as per the reasons above? 92.29.7.2 (talk) 09:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm another American who agrees: "Asian carps" looks, feels, seems wrong. I don't buy the logic about using the plural because there are more than one species of Asian carp. If that were that case, shouldn't the Wikipedia page for "Carp" be "Carps" since there are many species of carp? (It's not.) And why is "carp" not capitalized in the title? It's a title after all. Making changes...Savacek (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

notability

[edit]

Is there any justification for this article? It does not represent a valid taxon or a common fisheries or aquarium term, as far as I know. This article also does not refer to Asian carp species, but rather to selected large Asian carps plus Carassius. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 21:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers carps of political and envirnmental significance in the Great Lakes states, and especially because of the Michigan v. Illinois court case. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Imho, this is not an article of encyclopedic quality on Asian carp, but instead an article on the spread of and efforts to control Asian carp in the US (or, more specifically, the Great Lakes of the US), hence, the article needs a title reflecting that focus. Maybe something like:
  • "Asian carp in the US"
  • "Asian carp in the Great Lakes"
Obviously, it could be part of an article on Asian carp, but then this base "Asian carp" article should then be much more comprehensive.--Rhkramer (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan v. Illinois concerning Asian carps

[edit]

There should be an article on Michigan v. Illinois concerning Asian carps, but I cannot find it on the official SCOTUS website, or on some observer sites. Can someone find the docket for it?--DThomsen8 (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.justice.gov/osg/brief/original-wisconsin-v-illinoismichigan-v-illinoisnew-york-v-illinois-opposiiton Kaihsu (talk) 08:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

apocryphal info

[edit]

There is no scientific basis to the statement that bighead or silver carp eat 40% of their body weight per day, although it has been repeated in the media so often that it shows up on government sites. For a scientific viewpoint, look at Kolar et al 2005 or Kolar et al. 2007, cited in this article. They reviewed the scientific literature on these species, and found several estimates of how much the fish ate under aquaculture conditions (when one presumes they would be well-fed). The numbers cited ranged from 5 to about 20% of body weight per day. They don't NEED to eat that much to survive - it is just what they ate under optimal conditions. I'm getting tired of fixing that. Also, Asian carps have not caused any measurable decrease in numbers of native fish in the Illinois or Mississippi Rivers, although recent data indicates that some native fish are getting skinnier and one would assume that would eventually have population effects. They are NOT 95% of the biomass of the Illinois River. Ok?Carptracker (talk) 05:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move back to Asian carp

[edit]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Asian carps → Asian carp — It appears that this was moved to the awkward "Asian carps" a couple of years ago, yet with very little popular support. Besides, it is convention that Wikipedia uses the singular. harej 00:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Support - many animal pages refer to more than one species, but the convention is that they use the singular. For example, Gibbon, Duck, Gray squirrel etc. There's no reason for Asian carp to be an exception.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support !! 207.81.170.99 (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Should Asian Carp and Koi article be merged

[edit]

Shouldn't these two articles be merged or make the Koi article a sub-section in the Asian Carp article. Seems redunant.

Asian Carp is Chinese domesticated:

grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)

common carp (Cyprinus carpio)

silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix)

largescale silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys harmandi)

bighead carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis)

black carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus)

common goldfish (Carassius auratus)

crucian carp (Carassius carassius)

Koi is domesticated common carp (Which the Chinese already domesticated) Why do we have a separate article about Koi?

Isn't Koi just the shortened Japanese word for Asian Carp or Chinese domesticated Common Carp. Seems redundant, we can end up with all sorts of names (The vietnamese name for Carp then have an article on that, Thai name for Carp and have a article on that, and on and on, etc. Seems redundant. We should merge these articles.--165.214.4.23 (talk) 05:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, these should be separate subjects, especially since there is controversy and lawsuits over Asian carp as an invasive species. I oppose any merger.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't understand the reason for keeping the articles separate. Is this article about invasion of the Asian carp and not about the Fish? If the Chinese already domesticated Common Carp and Koi is domesticated common carp, should Koi be covered under the article about domesticated carp. If this article is about the invasion of Asian carp as a species, do we have an article about the Chinese domesticated Carps that we can merge with the Koi article. Considering the Chinese did it first and domesicating carp was common in East Asia shouldn't these articles be combined. --165.214.4.22 (talk) 06:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The articles should not be combined. This is an article about more than 1 species of fish some people call "Asian carps", Koi is a notable enough species of fish to have its own article, and taxonomists even gave it a taxonomic name. If it was merged, it will be like "duck" being merged with "bird". This article is mostly about the invasion of the "Asian carps", but also refers to the fish species a little bit. Also, don't make an article about "domesticated fishes from China" and then merge it with the koi article. The Japanese are the ones who domesticated carps into koi for your information.SuperPayara123 (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't JUST about the U.S; Canadian-issues with Asian carp included too

[edit]

I noticed that, for some reason, this article only mentions the U.S side of the litigation and lawsuits filed involving Asian carp (in 2009 and 2010). I included (and cited and referenced) the Canadian incidents too. It is only fair - if informatoin regarding the litigation is to be included, then it shouldn't be limited to the U.S only; Canada also filed a suit in January of 2010. Cheers! Ammau (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As food - inconsistency needs correction

[edit]

There is a logical inconsistency between saying Grass Carp is an Asian Carp and then saying that people have sometimes not eaten Asian Carp because they confuse it with Grass Carp. Can someone who know about this subject please clear up this inconsistency? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.130.6.221 (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The following excerpt from the article needs correction: "However, many people in North America do not distinguish the various Asian carp species and see them all as undesirable food fish because of their perceived bottom-feeding behavior, while, in fact, only some species are bottom-feeders. Furthermore even the bottom-feeding species such as the common carp, a highly bony species which was introduced to North America from Eurasia in the 17th century, are important food fish outside North America.[6]" To correctly state, people in North America have no problem with bottom feeders -- for example, flounder, halibut, sole, cod, haddock, bass, and grouper. The only problem seems to involve the bones in Asian carp. 72.185.59.101 (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Invasive Species Status in North America

[edit]

The section Invasive Species Status in North America needs more subsections, but the text intertwines Great Lakes issues with other locations, making separate subsections difficult to create. Perhaps someone with more expertise on the subject could do better than I can at creating subsections for ease of reading and especially editing. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, there should be SOME evidence cited to back up the claims made therein. While it is noted that the fish are considered invasive species by governmental organizations, etc., there is no justification given. They are just "thought to be highly detrimental to the environment in parts of the United States" with one citation whose link is dead, and cannot be verified. The way the article is written, it would appear that the species has little or no adverse ecological effects, though there may possibly be some negative effects on economic activities, making it a pest species, not an invasive. There is no room for this kind of sensationalism in Wikipedia, in my opinion. I would say that without serious evidence cited on these so-called detrimental effects, the section should be renamed. Furthermore, there is no opposing point of view. Do fishermen love the idea of these fish filling their nets? Is this the one species of fish in the world we cannot overfish? As far as I can tell, Asian carp have not detrimentally effected anything, there are no potential problems with them, and all the fears are based on xenophobia and nativism, not science.Pinus jeffreyi (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse McCartney

[edit]

Who is Jesse McCartney, mentioned in the Invasive Species section? Unlikely to be the singer, and the link is dead. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the revert I made

[edit]

I have reverted this edit, because it just looks like a personal opinion with a reference tagged on the end, it reads like a call-to-arms, not an encyclopedia article. I don't see a problem with the source being used to support a sentence like "Senator Sherrod Brown has introduced a bill to stop the Asain Carp...whatever the details are...", but the article should say "stopping this is a priority...industry can't even shift the sport fishing from one fish to another..." as if these are universal truths and not opinions. - SudoGhost 17:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


—→ I made adjustments as I see how they could be seen as biased, however the facts still remain. Asian Carp are a threat to Lake Erie. If they were to be introduced, it would be almost impossible to make it so they do not prosper as it is a "perfect" environment for these fish. This would cause harm to the fishing and boating industries in Ohio: 1) it is difficult to catch fish using traditional methods [as noted earlier in this entry] 2) the fish are known to jump when frightened by boats. Just as it is a priority to those involved to prevent the Asian carp from entering into any of the great lakes this is also true here. Cav232 (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that reference verifies is that a senator had introduced a bill, it does not verify that "it would cause harm to fishing and boating industries in Ohio" or that "asian carp are a threat to Lake Erie". From what I can tell, these are opinions not facts; the article cannot portray them as facts, especially not without reliable sources specifically saying such. - SudoGhost 18:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Asian carp. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 18:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Asian carp. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 19:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Asian carp. 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:

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) 15:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Asian carp. 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:

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) 08:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 July 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per unanimous consensus. No such user (talk) 11:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asian carp → Invasive carp – aligns with USDA guidance to discourage anti-Asian sentiment KnnNike (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''',then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion

[edit]
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.

Edit xenophobic language

[edit]

Please edit the taxonomy of this page and revise "Asian carp" to merely "carp." Listing the fish as "Asian Carp" unnecessarily reinforces anti-Asian bias and xenophobia, especially as this is a species of fish considered invasive and dangerous. It is misleading to continue to use a xenophobic phrase, when a geopolitically neutral term works. Editors may include the antiquated term, "Asian carp" in a history of the term or etymology section. 162.224.176.39 (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion directly above. One might also point out that "xenophobia" is not an accusation to be flung about just because you are feeling particularly righteous today (otherwise may we expect you to kick off at African wild dog, Asian giant hornet, and Kaffir lime next?) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Invasive carp" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Invasive carp has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 22 § Invasive carp until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asian_carp&oldid=1241813823"