Talk:Shark fin soup

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Mount Allison University supported by Canada Education Program and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2012 Q4 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from on 14:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Nutritional Value
Can anyone provide the nutritional value of shark fin? Just the shark fin, not shark fin soup. Kalandra 18:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Table 21 of this article contains information on the chemical composition of dried shark fins. --71.175.23.226 20:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

Cleared controversial information after checking data, verified refs. Richardofoakshire (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Imitation shark fin soup (factual accuracy problem)
I question the factual accuracy of the statement


 * "There is an imitation version that is usually sold in cans that may be labelled as shark fin soup;" (emphasis added)

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. --71.175.23.226 20:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

Chinese Traditional Medicine
(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).


 * Most of Chinese "traditional" medicine is a crock. Rhino horn isn't going to cure anything, and neither is shark cartilage. --Haizum   μολὼν λαβέ 18:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * those are hardly the prime representatives of Chinese traditional medicine. infamous ones more like it. therefore i would urge you not to use "most of". Chensiyuan 08:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually being Chinese myself I can affirm that those dishes aren't considered Chinese "traditional" medicine. It's not even considered medicine, barely considered a health supplement.  As for Chinese "traditional" medicine itself, many (boarderline most) western medical professionals in the US and other industrialized nations have made almost a complete 180 on their position of eastern medicines.  They're rapidly finding many herbs once thought to be completely useless as far as medicinal purposes go, will actually treat illnesses rather than suppressing symptoms as many "western" medicines do.  I would urge you do a little more research on the subject before calling it a "crock".

-University Med Student —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.96.207 (talk) 05:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This article reads like an Animal Rights soapbox
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)


 * Statistics are taken from WWF, an animal right group. If that's not biased, I don't know what is.  129.173.209.219 (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

--210.188.139.188 (talk) 05:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to agree without arguing about anyone's right to object to the practice of finning. I was struck by this section in the "Nutritional Value and Health Issues" section:


 * Shark fins, in common with other costly east Asian delicacies such as Bird's nest soup and sea cucumber, have very little flavor of their own.[9] Their appeal lies more in their texture and their ability to absorb flavors from other soup ingredients and also for the simple fact of their expense and supposed "rarity", as with many luxury goods.[18]


 * This has nothing to do with neither nutritional value nor health issues related to shark fin soup. Its only purpose appears to put readers off of the soup while challenging the intelligence of the soup's eaters.  The sentence could be re-written as "Shark fins are tasteless and you only want to eat them because they are expensive and rare."


 * The content of this article still has coatrack content that either already exists or should be merged into shark finning and Shark. Unless a reliable source directly talks about shark fin soup, the content does not belong in this article.  Piecemealing sources to push a point of view not already in a source would be original research.   Notice how an article like steak is not weighed down with information about mad cow disease, Beef hormone controversy, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, or Veganism. —Bagumba (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Decline in Shark population
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)

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)

Shark fin VS Shark fin soup
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)


 * Sure, let's build Shark fin or add it to Shark with Shark. And while we're at it, work on Shark Fin with and expansion and rename. There is also Shark finning to consider. --Travis Thurston+ 00:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow...this looks like work...Sjschen (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

shark waters
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)

Shark meat
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)

Cancer fighting abilities
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)

insufficient info in reference to Radio Times
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?

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)
 * So if its attributed it doesn't belong and if its not attributed it doesn't belong, ah well, thats Maoism for ya. Sayerslle (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure how Maoism is related. BTW, my comment was specific to inclusion in the lead not the entire article, but any opinion is subject to consensus. Can you also provide the title and author of the article (assuming it is from a magazine which was not directly answered) Can you also provide what are Butchers credentials&mdash;e.g. film critic, food critic, etc. For convenience, is there is a web resource? Thanks Bagumba (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would be from a radio program if a page number is listed! (I have never seen 'p.' used to refer to anything other than 'page'). BTW I doubt the radio times is a suitable source anyway. It is written in a tabloid style and full of opinions and program reviews.1812ahill (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * if you search www.the arts desk.com Gordon Ramsay:Shark Bait/Dispatches - there are details of the programme that was broadcast on channel four in january about ' the dark secrets of the shark-fin industry' - yes David Butcher is a TV critic, for the Radio Times, which yes, is a magazine, une revue, weekly, been going for ages, widely read in Britain, and David Butcher, is a TV critic  who writes for it , regularly,  Sayerslle (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Quoting a TV critic on an ecological issue that uses "sickening"? Lets do better on notability and neutrality. 70.137.137.88 (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * he is probably an intelligent enough guy to get such a job, watch a TV programme about the shark-fin industry and comment on it - 'an ecological issue' - so just experts like you presumably can be trusted.. notability, neutrality -- yeah, physician, heal thyself. Sayerslle (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody seems to have access to this source that contains questionable use of ellipses that you are evasive about putting into the article (and not burying in a footnote) who has the opinion whether it is the TV critic or the celebrity chef. And will you finally provide an article name and page number or is this actually one of those 2 sentence "reviews" to lure people into watching?166.205.137.142 (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 'lure people into watching..?' What are you on about. say good night to the folks, gracie.Sayerslle (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

IWMC
This appears to be an advocacy site; it should be used cautiously if at all. Allens (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Moreover, anything not directly related to the soup should be placed in the shark finning article. This is not a WP:COATRACK for shark finning or the environment.—Bagumba (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

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)
 * You are invited to be bold and fix them yourself as well.—Bagumba (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

Coatrack in lead
The lead of a cultural food item should not be dominated by coatrack 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)

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)
 * Sorry, that was not my intent. Was looking to stop the adding of coats first.  Cleaning the existing ones is more complex (e.g. refactoring useful sources to other articles, neutrally summarizing the high level points here, etc) and is on the to-do list.  In the meantime, there is the coatrack tag to inform readers/editors.—Bagumba (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you elaborate on "misleading and out of date article"? Feel free to be bold and fix it here and/or the other article. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight on shark finning
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)

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)

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)

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)
 * I like the suggestion of moving the "controversy" into the "Market" section. I personally think the contents of "Types of shark used" and "Trade" belong in an article on the shark fin trade, and have tagged and started a disucssion to merge them into Shark finning.—Bagumba (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Types of shark used" and "Trade" were merged to shark finning. I've attempted to preserve important points and address the remaining concerns with this edit.—Bagumba (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit to Ban's section
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)

China losing appetite for shark fin delicacy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO0BKe4p4yw --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Confusion Place of origin
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)

Eccentric edits
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)
 * In addition, the edit summaries left by the IP are often inappropriate. DrChrissy (talk) 12:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Epipelagic Do you think we might be able to get an admin to take the article back where it was when the banned IP started the troublesome edits? Is this what "rollback" is? DrChrissy (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops... I didn't notice the IP's version was the current version. I reverted, but you could have equally reverted. I don't think rollback does anything you can't do manually... it can just make things a bit easier. I prefer Twinkle. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I tried to revert the latest IP change earlier but it would not let me because a bot had come in and saved something after the IP. I've just realised that I could go back to the last version before the IP stepped in and make a manual save of that version.  Do you think I need an admin's permission to make such a large change or could we just go on consensus between you and I (and any others that might want to have a say)? DrChrissy (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OOOhps - I did not see you have already reverted. I think we are ok now. DrChrissy (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

"Leaves the shark to die"
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)
 * Fish are normally harvested commercially for use as food, and at some point this necessarily involves the death of the fish. But in this case the sharks are not being harvested for food. Only their fins are of interest. The sharks themselves are discarded back to the ocean as a convenient way get rid of them. So there is no doubt, it should be clearly stated that the sharks are left to die. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Epipelagic. DrChrissy (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

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)
 * No it's not the only objection. The source you use is not a reliable source. But more seriously, you are confusing the issue by introducing bycatch, which is an irrelevancy. This article is not about bycatch, it is about shark fins. The point is that killing sharks for their fins is contributing to the global decline in sharks. The other point is that is wasteful, because the finless body of the shark is often discarded back into the ocean and left to die. Bycatch is not the only other factor in shark declines. There are also factors like illegal fishing, unregulated shark fisheries, overfishing of shark prey items, knock-on effects of climate change (like acidification), and anthropogenic ocean pollution. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, many sharks are finned and dumped overboard (many are kept too) and this is cruel and wasteful, and yes this should be stated more explicitly in the section perhaps, but you're saying my sources are not reliable? Note the only citation on finning in the section is from WildAid, which is the the mother organization of SharkSavers, where my source is from. Both are well respected animal advocacy/protection organizations. The cited pdf also heavily cites papers from referred journals and the UN FAO. How do you see that as being unreliable? Continuing, no one is arguing here that killing sharks for their fins isn't contributing to their decline. It is. As you stated, there are a multitude of reasons why sharks are in decline, but if we are talking about shark finning, then we HAVE to talk about by-catch. Between a third to a half of sharks killed for fins are sourced from by-catch. It is also recorded that 60% of by-catch sharks are finned rather than released, and this number is likely on the low end. Introducing by-catch into this section here is definitely not due to confusion on my part. Look, I don't want believe you are being disingenuous with your critiques, but between your claim that my source is unreliable and that by-catch is irrelevant, I'm not sure how I'm suppose in interpret your intent. -- Sjschen (talk) 03:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have a RS to verify these data? DrChrissy (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, but I'm still looking forwards to hearing Epipelagic's definition of "reliable". -- Sjschen (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So why don't you share your sources so that other editors can assess their reliability according to WP:RS criteria? DrChrissy (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I indicated the source is not the serious issue. The real issue is that you are sidetracking into other cause of shark declines, such as bycatch, and in the process you are losing the focus on what the article is about (shark fins). You seem to want to continue talking about these irrelevancies. We do not HAVE to talk about bycatch at all. It's not that bycatch itself is irrelevant. It's just that it's irrelevant in the context of this particular article. Bringing it up gets in the way of the real issue, which is the impact that slicing fins from sharks is having on shark populations. The source you gave about bycatch is not peer reviewed and comes from an organisation with a biased or opinionated position. Why choose such a source when, as you acknowledged yourself, there are more appropriate sources? A better place for an extended account of declines in shark populations would be threatened sharks or shark finning. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

IP edits
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)

Article revision
I moved this thread here from my Talk page. DrChrissy (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

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)


 * I do not use a program to scan - it was a visual scan. I think your second sentence was intended to suggest that "major cause of shark population population decline worldwide" is advocacy, etc. for PETA.  I can not find a link between the cited article and PETA. Is there one? DrChrissy (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

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)
 * Editors paraphrase, they do not quote. First, the edit does not indicate this is due to "Chinese communities worldwide".  So, let's let that one go.  Second, perhaps the editor was paraphrasing "The collapse of the soupfin shark fishery in the US Pacific is typical. The fishery expanded spectacularly in with the discovery that liver oil was rich in vitamin A. Catches peaked at 4,000 metric tons (mt) in 1940, crashed in 1942 and by 1944 were down to only 300 mt. More than 50 years on, and despite the lack of fishing, the population has still not recovered to its former level."  To me, that seems like an appropriate paraphrase. Third, while it might sound like something that PETA would say, this is not the attribution in the article. DrChrissy (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Fake citations
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)
 * Could you kindly state which ones? You have to be clear on specifying which citations are not valid. I will do research to see if the article contents are in citations given. SundayRequiem (talk) 03:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal
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)
 * Support. The "imitation" article is short and could easily be incorporated into this page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support merger. There's a bit of redundancy between the two and I feel the information would be presented better as a single article. The merger should only add 300–400 words to this article.  If the merge is carried out, please ping me for additional copyedit. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)