Talk:Buddha Jumps Over the Wall

Pronunication
I notice that the Mandarin pronunciation and the Hokkien/Southern Min pronunication is given. But the dish originates in Fuzhou. So shouldn't the Hok-chiu pronunciation be given? If you're going to have Southern Min you might as well have Cantonese, Shanghainese and various other dialects. I think only Mandarin and Hok-chiu are relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dena.walemy (talk • contribs) 11:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

name?
please guys, it's best known in english-language menus as buddha jumps over the wall. InfernoXV (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I really dislike the English name, Buddha Jumps Over the Wall because it is poorly translated by Westerners or the translator seemed to want a shocking impact with the name. In the origin of the dish 佛 refers to "a Buddhist monk" not Buddha. However that is more known in English-speaking world according to Google news/Books. On the other hand, the English name is not that dominantly prevalent either. In that case, the name should be decided by Chinese manual of style.

--Caspian blue 22:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Good Googling. I prefer the English name. In any case, discussion should have been used before the page was moved from English to tone-less pinyin. Badagnani (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The dish is a Cantonese/Fujian dish, then should it follow their naming if the article does not use the English name? --Caspian blue


 * If that's the name most commonly used in English (i.e., on restaurant menus, etc.). For example, things like "dim sum," "har gow," "siu mai," etc. do not have English equivalents and the English translations are never used in such situations. But for this item it does appear that, as in the English-language news source you added earlier today, that the English name for this item is used in English. Badagnani (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I meant the dish is a Cantonese food, so calling it in Cantonese is natural like "fattiucoeng" instead of "fo tiao qiang". But given the above research, most of "fotiaoqiang" are either from Chinese sites written in English or just brief mention in parenthesis. So I'm leaning toward the idea of changing the current title to "Buddha Jump Over the Wall" with the capitals. If we just title it like the way it used to be could give a wrong impression to readers as if that is an episode of Buddha.Caspian blue 14:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Fujian is not a Cantonese-speaking region; the primary language is Min Nan, and thus it's not correct to state that this is a primarily Cantonese food; it is Cantonese and Fujianese. Badagnani (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know that, but thanks anyway. The dish is known as a just Cantonese in South Korea, so I said so.--Caspian blue 00:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Could we not use 'Buddha Jump Over The Wall'? 'Buddha Jumps Over the Wall' is at least grammatical. InfernoXV (talk) 08:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. that is my grammatical error.--Caspian blue 00:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (out) In the past I have generally used the Chinese name when it's a food that's not well-known to English speakers (for example, suanmeitang). Based on Caspian's googling, it looks like this dish is well-known enough that we can go with the English name. And the Consumption outside China section could always have a sentence or two about the name by which it is known to English speakers (and, thus, the translation issues mentioned above&mdash;if there's a reliable source for that). r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 00:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but 佛 quite unequivocally means "Buddha", not "Buddhist monk" &mdash; unless you're contending that the name is an abbreviation of a longer version? Jpatokal (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * When I wrote the above first, I just said if from my knowledge and Korean newspapers, not look into English sources by googling. Interestingly, Korean newspapers define the meaning of the dish as "Buddhist monk" not "Buddha". However the name caused a big controversy in South Korea in 1989, so writers may want to avoid any objection from Buddhist associations.--Caspian blue 03:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, 佛 definitely means "Buddha" and not "monk." If it were a Buddhist monk, it'd be some character like 坊 or 僧. LordAmeth (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that is a cultural difference. In Korea, 坊 is definitely not used for Buddhist monk, but just refers to "neighbor" or room. 僧 is not solely used such as 僧侶, honorific for Korean pure word, Jung. And 佛者 refers to Buddhist monk, or students of Buddha or Buddhist, so sometimes, 佛 refers to other than Buddha in Korea.--Caspian blue 20:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Move to where?
According to the examination on Google News/Books, Buddha Jumps Over the Wall (with the capitals) is established name in English-speaking world, but others may think differently. (I'm not familiar with manual styles for Chinese articles. Anyway, I think it is a time to decide to move the title. --Caspian blue 00:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Buddha Jumps Over the Wall
 * Agreed --Caspian blue 00:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed InfernoXV (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 00:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My vote opinion in an effort to build consensus. Bongo  matic  01:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This does seem to be a well established name for the dish in English. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Buddha jumps over the wall


 * 3) Fotiaoqiang


 * 4) Fo tiao qiang

Aids in digestion
The article makes health claims about the dish as a digestive aid and health supplement. This is a medical claim sourced to a newspaper, JoongAng Ilbo. Generally, Wikipedia cannot repeat medical claims from popular news sources (see WP:MEDRS) without some kind of verification in actual medical sources. Lacking such sources, please remove it. Viriditas (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Due weight to shark finning
Several editors have repeatedly added detailed material to this article regarding controversy over the use of shark fin due to practices of shark finning. While there are references to the controversy that mention this dish, the references for the shark finning article (which is well referenced) demonstrate that the two are far from closely linked (a search for the topic of shark finning will also demonstrate this). Accordingly, since this is an article about the dish&mdash;not the ingredient, suitable reference to the shark finning article (probably sufficient as a "see also", but also added at the mention of the ingredient in the article text to make sure it is not overlooked) is appropriate. Anything that replicates the chief information in the articles on shark fin or shark finning constitutes WP:UNDUE weight. Bongo matic  14:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that only a short mention is warranted. An alternative idea would be to note in the ingredients section that: "Shark fin is obtained by the controversial pracitce of shark finning," or something like that. This way people understand that there is a controversy and can use the link to investigate further, but this article on this dish focuses on the dish and not that issue. Basically, a note that there is a controversy or issue with the key ingredient in this dish is worth noting, but it should be kept to a short note that points to the articles covering the issue in detail. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Bongomatic. Shark's fin is part of 30 something ingredients used for making the dish. The controversy part is already ell covered in Sharks fin soup and Shark finning. By the way, the agenda-driven IP users are quacking each other. If and  are the same one, s/he evaded the block sanction.--Caspian blue 21:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Three reliable sources discuss this topic and mention the specific soup by name, and hundreds more discuss it in terms of the ingredients needed for similar soups or the same soups not mentioned by name. The issue is far more complex than just "shark finning". Two of the ingredients used in Buddha Jumps Over the Wall, namely abalone and shark fin, are implicated in the overfishing of those species. Factors include the high profits from the US$100-200 dish, profits that lead to increased shark finning and intensive diving for abalone, both legal and illegal. Records show that abalone harvesting and purchasing in Asian countries is regularly exceeding the limits set by the world community, and as a result, abalone could disappear soon; This already happened in California. Because of the popularity of shark fin for soup, it is reported that 100 million sharks may be killed each year, many of them in the Galapagos Islands. As apex predators, sharks are essential for regulating the ocean ecosystem. If you remove them, the entire food web is threatened by their absence. This is not undue weight. This is a significant problem facing the world, and one major factor for the decline of these species is the demand for this soup. Viriditas (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been following this discussion for a few days. My take on this is that the shark/abalone issue is relevant to the soup if and to the extent the soup is actually mentioned as a source of the problem, and vice versa.  I don't think it's appropriate to engage in a full exegesis of the entire fisheries problem in this culinary article, but it seems appropriate to me to explain the connection that has been made elsewhere.  Even apart from the important environmental issues, I'd also think it's reasonable to mention the Kai Mayfair "most expensive soup in the world" version anyway, since it's mentioned quite a bit in food literature and Kai Mayfair is notable enough to already have its own article.  So how about something like the following? (For the moment I've left the footnotes in-line, in, so they can be read directly.)


 * Kai Mayfair, a Malaysian-owned Chinese restaurant in London, England, serves a version of this soup that has been called "the world's most expensive soup," priced in 2005 at £108 per bowl. This version must be ordered five days in advance, and contains substantial amounts of both shark fin and abalone.    The use of these rare, and ecologically sensitive, ingredients in luxury versions of Buddha Jumps Over the Wall has been cited in subsequent reports about the adverse impact of shark finning, increasing demand for shark fin soup, and abalone harvesting on those species' prospects for survival.


 * Thoughts? --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Much better than the IP user's version, but in that case, I think the "controversy" section should be merged with "Consumption outside China" which deals another controversy.--Caspian blue 21:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Arxiloxos please merge my paraphrased paragraph above with your own, which cites some relevant data about abalone and shark finning that you are using. Check those sources.  I would be strongly against merging this with "consumption outside China" as per the sources, China is implicated in much of the overfishing.  I would also recommend a separate section simply and accurately called "Demand and overfishing", which is what the subtopic is about. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * My take is that such data and sources, and any extensive "demand and overfishing" discussion, belong at shark finning and probably at shark fin soup, but not here in this article about a particular version of shark fin soup. As far as I could see, those sources didn't make any any specific mention of this specific recipe in those sources, but even if they did, the problem is not that there is too much demand for Buddha Jumps Over The Wall, but too much demand for shark fin soup of all kinds.  (I've added a link to the existing discussion at shark fin soup about that increasing demand in the draft paragraph above, in italics)  Please let me add that I do take this issue quite seriously, and I personally stopped eating shark fin soup years ago; I just don't think an extensive discussion of it fits here, in what should be a relatively straightforward and non-contentious culinary article, with appropriate links and references to the significant discussions elsewhere.  Just my opinion, of course.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we can all agree that one subsection consisting of one to two paragraphs (preferably one) does not constitute an "extensive discussion". Due to the coverage of this issue in every aspect of the media, from scholarly journals to newspaper accounts, the principle of undue weight doesn't come into play here. We have a significant issue related to a popular dish.  I'm not seeing any problem voiced in this discussion aside from "I don't like it".  We have sources saying that the demand and profit motive for this specific dish leads to or contributes to overfishing.  We have sources saying that the ingredients needed for this specific dish are being overfished.  We also have numbers and data related to both.  That's all the section needs to cover, and we have reliable sources.  I don't see any problem here.  Per WP:ENEMY, I've asked Bongomatic to look at the sources and compose the material in his own words. Viriditas (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of adding additional material on the topic of shark finning to this article. The vast majority of references to this dish do not mention shark finning in detail. The vast majority of articles about shark finning do not mention this dish. Hence more than a passing reference to shark finning and issues surrounding it (or, for that matter, more than a passing reference to this dish in an article on shark finning) constitutes WP:UNDUE weight. Straw poll initiated below. Bongo matic  23:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Those arguments aren't valid. I'll explain why: That you have "no intention" so resolve a dispute you began, tells me you don't understand dispute resolution.  You claimed that this was a NPOV dispute (undue weight).  Writing for the enemy is the easiest way to solve a NPOV dispute, yet you refuse to do it.  So you began a dispute you refuse to help resolve, and that's a problem.  Second, your argument about the "vast majority of articles" not mentioning this dish isn't correct.  Three reliable sources have been posted above reflecting and reiterating the concerns about this particular variety of soup, concerns raised by dozens of other sources using the general description of "shark fin soup".  The three sources above mention the name of this soup, Buddha Jumps Over the Wall.  There is nothing "undue" about this, and the use of abalone and shark fins to make this soup is widely published. I took five minutes to look in a database index and found many reliable sources in journals, reviews, government publications, and newspapers.  Undue weight has nothing to do with this and I'm afraid you misunderstand that subsection of NPOV.  Undue weight is about a minority POV, and the opinion being offered here is not in the minority. Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a point of clarification: I believe we have two, not three such articles, both of them from The Independent. The third cite, from The New Zealand Herald, appears to be a reprint of one of the Independent pieces.  Both articles make a specific reference to Kai Mayfair's super-expensive version of BJOTW.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good catch, I missed that. Yes, now we are down to two articles, one by Stephen Khan and the other by John Lichfield. However, the literature on this particular subject is massive, and I'm sure I can find other sources, which is what I'm doing now.  Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

How about a sentence or two along the lines of:
 * Buddha Jumps Over the Wall and other foods using shark's fin as an ingredient have been subject to controversy over the practice of shark finning. There are also concerns over abalone depletion".

With cites of course. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CoM, do web and news searches for "shark finning" and "shark fin", for "Buddha Jumps Over the Wall", and for "shark finning" and "Buddha Jumps Over the Wall" and "shark fin" and "Buddha Jumps Over the Wall"</tt>. You will find that the (few) references to BJOTW in the overwhelming majority of coverage on shark fin or shark finning is only a passing reference, and that the same holds true for references to shark fin in the overwhelming majority of coverage of BJOTW. The environmental and ethical issues surrounding shark fin are precisely that&mdash;issues surrounding shark fin. Hence they should be identified in this article&mdash;if at all (there's no logical reason they must be addressed at all)&mdash;as an aside in the ingredient list. To draw an analogy, it's as though there were a couple of paragraphs in every article about a dish including meat about the ethics of eating animals&mdash;a very notable topic worthy of extensive coverage in this encyclopedia which is simply not relevant to (say) Beef Stroganoff. Bongo  matic  02:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The only problem with your argument is that it is a straw man. The two critical reports aren't concerned about the "ethics of eating animals".  They are concerned about the demand for this particular soup, an expensive soup that leads to overfishing of shark and abalone to supply the ingredients.  Nothing about the ethics of eating animals here.  Essentially, you are saying that criticism of a particular dish or food is not appropriate for a food article.  Thankfully, the NPOV policy addresses this issue and is at odds with your assessment.  This is not a minority POV, but rather the overwhelming majority opinion of those who study and maintain the fisheries, and this opinion is based on some anecdotal reports, but more often than not, scientific data and statistics concerning the health of the fisheries.  This is not a "fringe" POV, which is exactly what the undue weight component of NPOV is supposed to address.  Dozens, if not hundreds of reliable sources address this very topic.  What sources address issues surrounding Beef Stroganoff? Viriditas (talk) 03:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The analogy is imperfect, it is true, but your logic is flawed.
 * The dozens and hundreds of sources and scientific data and statistics to which you refer do not refer to this dish in particular, but to shark's fin generally. While shark's fin soup may be the main use of shark's fin, it is a category of many, many varieties of soup, and with respect to which (as a general category, not as one specific recipe) a more detailed discussion of the environmental issues to which you refer is appropriate. BJOTW makes up only a tiny fraction of all bowls of shark's fin soup bowls sold that are. Most restaurants, even those that serve or even specialize in shark's fin, don't offer it.
 * Contrary to your unsupported claim, there is not widespread mention (let alone the sort of non-trivial discussion) of this particular dish in a large number articles about overfishing of shark. This is not about whether the issue you identify deserves full coverage in the encyclopedia&mdash;it does (undisputedly, so far as I am aware). The question is whether that discussion merits more than a passing reference in an article about of hundreds of (mainly individually non-notable) shark's fin recipes.
 * As you suggest, the issue itself is not "fringe", which is why it is covered in detail. It is POV pushing to include more than a passing reference in an article on a loosely-related topic, in a way (loosely) analogous to highlighting the environmental / ethical issues of meat production on a dish where meat is a key ingredient. Bongo  matic  03:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ironically, you are the one pushing a POV of exclusion, claiming that this is "undue weight", when it doesn't meet that criteria. The argument for inclusion is based on two sources, neither of which you have addressed in any detail.  If you can't address those sources, then you don't have an argument.   You say that this topic does not deserve more than a passing reference to the effects of its consumption.  On what basis do you argue that?  Please address the sources.  All of the information in the sources can be found in hundreds of other articles and studies.  This is not a POV held by a fringe group as you are making it out, but a scientific observation based on hard data.  You are pushing your POV here, to keep critical information out of this article, and that is a violation of NPOV.  Viriditas (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * These are two sources that link the dish to the issue solely as an illustration. Even if they linked the dish to the issue more tightly, they would be two out of myriad articles in the popular press about shark harvesting and the related environmental issues, and the numerous scholarly and scientific articles to which you refer. Since the coverage of BJOTW is insignificant in each of the articles, and beyond that, the articles' mention of the dish is not representative of the enormous majority of discussions of shark's fin or the impact of consumption of shark's fin, it is POV to add more than a passing reference in this article. There is nothing being excluded, just included at the correct place (if you think those articles from The Independent add to the understanding of the issue, add them to shark fin or shark finning). Bongo  matic  04:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Stephen Khan's entire article is about the effects of soup dishes that use shark fins, and he refers specifically to "Buddha Jumps Over the Wall"; Khan does not mention any other soup in the article. John Lichfield's article is about the threats faced by abalone, and he refers to the abalone used in the soup as "one of the indispensable ingredients." Lichfield's article discusses the cultural factors around why these types of foods are used, and confirms what other studies have said about the social factors driving the demand behind these types of foods.  What exactly is it you are trying to argue?  That the use of shark fin and abalone used in this soup haven't been discussed?  There are two sources right there.  Now, please read WP:ENEMY and start using them.  There is nothing preventing anyone from mentioning that the shark fin and abalone used in this dish are impacting the shark and abalone species.  You're saying it isn't relevant, but of course it is, as there are multiple studies and sources discussing this topic.  Are you now going to claim that these soups don't include abalone or shark fin? Viriditas (talk) 04:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I am finished commenting here. This back and forth has devolved into repetition into repeated, if disputed, claims. There is sufficient exposition of the various views here for others to be bored to tears draw their own conclusions and opine. Bongo matic  04:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This article was created four years ago, but why such the sudden alert for environment? I don't see any mention of "veal controversy" in Parmigiana nor Mad cow disease in Beef brain.--Caspian blue 12:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll

 * Passing reference with links. Bongo  matic  23:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Direct reference to reliable sources describing the demand for the specific soup named "Buddha Jumps Over the Wall", and the profit motive that drives overfishing for abalone and shark fins to produce this specific soup, resulting in threatened species and harm to the ocean ecosystem. According to sources, "China is the world's largest producer and trader in shark fin. Hong Kong appears to have out-sourced much of its processing of shark fin to China, taking advantage of the lower labour costs; however it remains the most important market in shark fin..."  Therefore, it should not be merged into a "consumption outside China" section. Viriditas (talk) 03:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A short paragraph with wikilinks and footnotes, summarizing sources that have directly connected this recipe (not shark fin soup) to the environmental problem (and I would not object to one additional sentence providing further context and links to discussions elsewhere on the larger problem, if really needed). I accept Viriditas' point that this is not solely a "consumption outside China" issue.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Passing reference with links. If the Kai Mayfair material presented by Arxiloxos is added to the article, that should be merged into "Consumption outside China" because that shows not only overseas consumption of the soup but also its popularity. --Caspian blue 23:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A couple sentences with wikilinks to shark finning and section of Abalone article dealing with these issues, per sources found by Viriditas. Coverage isn't trivial, but I don't think a section is warranted. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A minor mention - So when did anyone say that minor details are allowed to expand into a whole, negative cherry-picking section? All the other articles about foods containing shark fin hardly even mention it, so it should be the same here. Leave shark-finning controversy to the news. It's just food, for God's sake. Should it be mentioned in every other meat/fish related article that thousands of cows, tuna, salmon, pigs, whatever are killed each year to produce this food? When you think about it that way, the section is completely ridiculous in itself.  GraYoshi2x► talk 22:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A couple sentences only because shark fin is not a heavy ingredient to this soup. And some people prefer their soup without any shark. But that is a very small minority considering people who paid hundred$ of dollars want to get most out of their meal. Benjwong (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Passing reference came by from RFC  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 04:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments

 * To Viriidtas: A reference that makes no mention of the dish, demonstrating that not only is the issue beyond "consumption outside China", but beyond the scope of this article. Bongo  matic  04:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It makes reference to shark fins used for soup, which is covered by sources, especially the two above. This is not beyond the scope of this article, but addresses the cuisine directly.  Does this dish use shark fins?  Yes or no? Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Opinion
I was asked for an opinion. The standard practice tis that a one-paragraph summary of related or specialized material is appropriate, but what is questionable is the NPOV of the summary. Personally, I find the practice, whether widespread or sporadic, remarkably disgusting. But it still needs to be described neutrally, and I do not consider the current summary here or in the shark fin article neutral. I find it polemic, and possibly even intended to be so. It certainly has the at effect on me: it is quite sufficient to permanently dispel any desire i might have to ever experience the dish. I',m not altogether sure that this can be totally avoided. The mere existence of the redirect with an explanation in the most neutral language of what the term means is possibly sufficient to do that--and if it leads to following the redirect, almost certain to. The main article, additionally, is unfortunately a soapbox,with no pretense to NPOV, and must be edited. There's no need to display POV there--the blandest possible presentation will be quite sufficient. I do not plan to look at this question further; I'm human, and I have my limits, and I want to sleep tonight. (FWIW, I am not in the least an opponent of either the eating of animals or their proper use for scientific experimentation.) DGG (talk) 05:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Is it undue weight to mention shark finning and overfishing?
In the Chinese dish, Buddha Jumps Over the Wall, sharks fin is included as a main ingredients along with abalone and others. However controversies over Shark finning are already well covered in the article and Sharks fin soup. So is mentioning the issue in detail to the article POV or not?--Caspian blue 13:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that despite extremely large numbers of reliably sourced references to shark finning and the environmental consequences thereof, only two articles identified so far mention this dish in that context, and those two mention it essentially in passing. One of them is primarily about abalone (Saving the world's rarest shellfish) and mentions the dish as but one example of uses of the shellfish. The other is an article on shark fin specifically, where a particular restaurant's introduction of the dish is mentioned as an example of shark fin soup (Fins for sale). Neither mentions the dish until halfway though, and the specific dish&mdash;as opposed to the practice of eating the substance&mdash;can be said to even be a minor focus of the article.  Bongo  matic  13:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought you said you weren't editing here anymore. In any case, your above statement is deceptive.  The full article title is, "Fins for sale: Galapagos sharks are under threat due to growing demand for £100-a-bowl soup in Chinese restaurants."  That is not a passing reference, but the subject of the entire article.  Furthermore, the subject of shark fin soup and its impact on the ecosystem, is covered in hundreds of reliable sources, and is not a minority POV.  The named soup includes both shark fin and abalone, two of the ingredients under discussion in both articles.  Unless you can show a single reliable source showing why this issue is unimportant and should not be mentioned (none exists btw), your POV remains yours alone. Viriditas (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel like we're beating a dead horse. We've had quite a bit of input. There are a few sources noting this dish specifically in relation to the controversy. I suggest we work out a sentence or two that wikilink to the article content dealing with these issues more substantially. My proposal was:
 * Buddha Jumps Over the Wall and other foods using shark's fin as an ingredient have been subject to controversy over the practice of shark finning. There are also concerns over abalone depletion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good start. "Other foods" is not necessary.  This subject of the "controversy" (that's a POV word, actually) is shark fin soup, of which "Buddha Jumps Over the Wall" is one variety.  The demand for these soups is based on social and cultural factors in Asian countries, and studies have shown that if those consumers knew about the risks to the ocean ecosystem, they would either choose alternatives or not eat it at all.  Need I remind everyone here that this is  not how an article RfC is conducted?  First, the general RfC statement needs to be written in a neutral tone without favoring one side or the other.  The current statement is inherently biased towards one side and does not present the issue in a neutral manner.  The RfC does not even need to be signed.  Second, the RfC is designed to elicit responses from outside the current talk page.  So, if anyone is seriously interested in starting an RfC again, please ask an experienced editor/admin how to do it.  This is not the way. Viriditas (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Show the alleged consensus
When did you get a consensus that your POV version (PETA agenda-like one) is accepted to the editors here? I don't see any. None supports yours. Please do not edit war over the "nonexist" consensus and do not treat this place as WP:BATTLE. Thanks.--Caspian blue 21:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Per talk guidelines, please do not address other editors in the subject of headings (I've removed my name). If you can find something wrong with the content that I have added, please discuss it here so that we can work collaboratively to fx it.  The RfC that you initiated was not created according to guidelines, and the discussion above is in agreement that material needs to be added to the article.  So, what specific complaints do you have about the content that I added?  Please direcetly address it.  To help you, I have placed it below this comment.  I am awaiting your analysis and criticism.  Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Viriditas redacted the title without permission. I think that is not allowed. Anyway, I just asked you a simple question. Since you insist that your version is "a consensus" between the users here, I demanded the evidence. Now you can show me instead of the wikilawyering, thanks.--Caspian blue 22:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read closer. As I said above, according to talk page guidelines, "Never address other users in a heading: A heading should invite all editors to respond to the subject addressed. Headings may be about a user's edits but not specifically to a user."  Please also stop putting words in my mouth.  There is a consensus to add material to the article.  Please describe the issues you find with the content below.  It would help if you respond directly to this content in that section so I can address your criticism.  Also, please stop with the personal attacks.  Anyone familiar with my edit history knows that I do not support PETA. Viriditas (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (ecx 3)You're the one putting words in my mouth as usual. I don't find any amusement in your accusation. As far as I've known, we just confirmed the disagreement over how to address the issue, and you've acknowledged my view in the Straw poll and other sections. Didn't you read the "PETA agenda-like one" in the section?--Caspian blue 22:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You have stated that you disagree with the content that I've added. Now, please describe this disagreement, explaining in detail, what is wrong with the material.  Remember, talk pages are for discussing how to improve the article.  They are not used as platforms for attacking other editors. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that talk pages are not for wikilayering or making attacks. I asked you first. I'm waiting for your answer. Thanks.--Caspian blue 22:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I already answered your question. There is consensus to include material in the article.  Now, since you disagree with what I added, how can I address your criticism without knowing what it is? Viriditas (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't like evasive approach. I don't see any consensus that your version is supported by the editors.--Caspian blue 22:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In order to gauge support, you would have to tell me what you disagree with specifically? Is there a word or sentence that bothers you?  A point?  A fact?  Can you please talk about the specific problem you have with the material?  Please remember, disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing without explaining yourself but continuing to block the editorial process can be seen as a form of disruption and a barrier to collaborative editing.  Please explain your disagreement. Viriditas (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I tweaked the content a bit. I think it's interesting and notable, but I understand the concerns about weight. The last two sentences seem too general for this article, but I think it would be good to preserve the cites. I'm okay with it having its own section or being merged back in with the ingredients and am interested in what others think. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The more collaboration the better. What is your reasoning for changing the neutral title from "Demand and overfishing" to "Ethical and environmental concerns"?  First of all, the two sources are discussing the demand for the fish and the overfishing that results.   Neither one has discussed the ethics of shark finning, which is classified as a destructive fishing practice.  So, ethics has nothing to do with this particular aspect of the subject.  It may certainly come into play in other articles or subjects, but not here.  Second, we try to be as specific as possible on Wikipedia, and changing "overfishing" to "environmental concerns" is too broad.  The concern is overfishing.  Best practice on Wikipedia is to be specific and address the topic.  The topic here is demand and overfishing, not ethics and environmental concerns.  Can you talk a little bit about why you think we should go from the particular to the general, when best editing practice is to do the reverse?  No hurry on this, take your time. Viriditas (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec 3) Since you can never answer my question, or show the needed evidence, I'm not gonna waste my time on this. From the second sentence, the section strongly insinuates that eaters of the expensive soup are morally changed enough to ruin the ecosystem. I predict somebody would revert your non-consensus edit. Good luck. --Caspian blue 22:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please have someone you trust explain it to you or look directly at the sources. There is nothing in either the source content or the body that infers any such thing about morality.  That is something you are bringing to the table.  In fact, there are several studies on why people in Asian countries eat this soup, and they all show that most people aren't aware of the problem.  Is ignorance immoral?  Not necessarily.  It is a natural state of affairs for most of humanity.  I think it may be possible to change the wording so that it is more clear, but you would need to actually look at the source material.  How can it be changed to avoid your interpretation?  I don't know just yet.  Can you rewrite it to avoid the moral implications that you see (but that I don't)? Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Vitiditas, do the sources actually use the phrase destructive fishing practices? That part makes me a little bit uncomfortable. And generally I still think the section can be tightened up a bit. Is shark's fin always taken by finning (where the shark is left to die?) Is it sometimes obtained from sharks that don't just have their fins taken, but that are use for their meat also? And can abalone be farmed?


 * What about


 * The soup has been controversial for its use of two key ingredients, abalone and shark fin, which are harvested legally and illegally, sometimes by shark finning and harvesting practices identified in reports on overfishing. The demand for the ingredients to make the US$100-200 dish comes from China's growing middle class and the dish's fashionable nature in Asia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You appear to be in the zone, so I don't really want to interrupt your writing process. "Destructive fishing practices" is an umbrella terms that covers at least three of the issues raised in the two articles.  The sources do not use that term in particular, but that term encompasses: shark finning, overfishing, and intensive fishing.  You are free to use all three terms instead of just one, of course.  If you feel comfortable with other terms, please use them. Viriditas (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

GraYoshi2x, you wrote in your edit summary, "For the last time, this section gives undue weight and is written in a very biased POV. The talk page shows that the majority dislikes this section and should be converted into a passing mention." Please do not suddenly show up to this article to revert collaborative editing. Please participate in the editing process. I would be interesting in discussing what you see as "biased POV" when all of the information in this section can be verified in hundreds of sources. Please answer my question. What specific part of this section is "biased POV"? If it exists, I would like to fix it. Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See my comment in the "straw poll" above. It's ridiculous that shark finning is given such attention here when no such similar concern exists in other articles. How many times have you heard of "cow abuse" in an article due to them being slaughtered for meat, or controversy about fish being eaten?  GraYoshi2x► talk 00:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Cow abuses should definitely be written about just as much. Benjwong (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * GraYoshi2x, you've been here for several years. Surely you know by now, that it is problematic to discuss whether other stuff exists or not in a discussion.  There are about 100 articles on Wikipedia that discuss similar issues, so I suggest you peruse the 'pedia.  Are you looking for examples?  I can provide them, but that will take us off the topic of this article.  We're talking about this article, and if you could address the content in question, it would help us proceed to a quick resolution.  Just so you know, my only position on this matter concerns "demand" for the product and the result of such demand, "overfishing".  Secondary to that, there is the effect on the ecosystems, and I have not yet written that part into the article.  The point is, I think we can all agree that the coverage of the topic is wide, that it is not POV, and that it should be discussed in this article in some way.  Beyond that, just how to do it seems to be in dispute.  I've added material and I've asked others to collaborate.  Caspian blue has pointed out what he sees as problems, but I can't address them unless he helps me.  That is to say, I do not fully understand his objection.  I would be more than willing to address any other objection directly, and if I am unable to do so, I will ask others to be blunt and simply observe that I cannot.  We all want a balanced article, so let's work towards that goal together.  Objections are welcome.  Please raise them. Viriditas (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we should stay focused on the content and the specific wording. It's clear there are concerns about weight as well as a desire to include the material appropriately. I strongly suggest we try to work out a compromise. Articles like foie gras do have sections about the related controversy (as well as an entire article on the subject). It seems to me there are some notable concerns related specifically to this dish. So let's work out how best to include them. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Demand and overfishing
The demand for abalone and shark fin, two of the soup ingredients required for Buddha Jumps Over the Wall, are implicated in destructive fishing practices. Profits from the US$100-200 dish, the growth of China's middle class, and the fashionable nature of particular Chinese food dishes have lead to increased shark finning and intensive diving for abalone, both legal and illegal. According to reports, abalone harvesting and purchasing by Asian countries is regularly exceeding fishery limits. Because of the popularity of shark fin for soup, it is reported that 100 million sharks around the world may be killed each year.


 * Alternative: The soup is mentioned specifically for its two key ingredients in reports related to destructive fishing practices. Abalone is considered endangered and is harvested legally and illegally, although it has begun to be farmed. Shark fins are sometimes obtained by the controversial practice of shark finning. Demand for the ingredients to make the US$100-200 dish comes from China's growing middle class and the dish's status in Asia.
 * Got rid of "implicated". Tried to be clear but as NPOV as possible. Could be in its own section or ingredients section. I'm good either way. Thoughts? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Western Analogue
In passing, and without care for this dish except commiserating with the poor murdered sharks, isn't there some Western dish, or maybe alcoholic drink, fortuitous or derived, which references a Monk ( Christian ) or Nun leaping over a wall, prolly in advertising... ? Claverhouse (talk) 09:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The Free Internet
— Assignment last updated by ReadyMadeAl (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)