Talk:American paddlefish/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about American paddlefish. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Request to "laymen-ize" the term....

John - I like your change to "exhibit synapomorphy" in the prose, but I think it may be too technical for the average reader. Each time I went through the review process, DYK-GA-FA, I was advised to make the terminology less scientific, and more reader friendly, even though the wikilinks provided a description. In this particular instance, even the wikilink is technical. Can you help? Thanks in advance....Atsme☯^Consult 18:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me think about that as I can see your point. --John (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Culinary aspect

It seems many fish articles completely lack information on their culinary uses, cooking techniques, quality of flesh, market sizes and cuts, and more. It appears this fish is mostly fished for caviar, which is briefly mentioned in the article, but that can be expanded along with aspects of its meat, which is apparently widely used and delicious. I'm surprised this passed FA with hardly a mention of culinary uses.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 16:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Quick consult - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a cookbook, particularly with regards to an IUCN vulnerable species that is protected by state, national and international laws. You will find far more RS about protecting the species than you will about eating them. Their popularity as a sportfish is limited to specific areas within the US because their populations are limited. Snagging isn't a widely accepted sport, either. As far as paddlefish meat and caviar, three words describe it, gourmet specialty item, not mainstream or readily available at the local grocery store like cod, salmon, tilapia, T-bones and ribeyes. Paddlefish farming is an emerging industry thanks to the efforts of the Missouri Department of Conservation, and Steve Mims of KSU's Aquaculture Research Center [1] - see the section Human interaction - but it is still a fringe aspect of the subject, so you might want to read WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Have you read the article, Caviar? Under the section Terminology it states (....and Polyodontidae or paddlefish) are not caviar, but "substitutes of caviar." Now that should surprise you, not the FA review which was conducted by some of the best editors WP has to offer. You'll understand the rigors of such a review when/if you get the opportunity to experience it. Oh, and keep in mind the biological lag in farming paddlefish; i.e., the time span from initial investment to harvesting a return. One of the problems is that in order to harvest the roe for caviar, the fish has to be killed. Maybe Monsanto can come up with a GMO to modify it. *sigh* One more thing that should surprise you is how this ancestral species managed to outlive the dinosaurs, but is having hell escaping the discriminating palates of the 1%. Happy trails, and good luck getting through your GA review on Briarcliff Farms. It's a great article except for the giant quote box, but maybe your GA reviewer won't mind it. Together with Briarcliff Manor, the history is fascinating.

Atsme☯^Consult 22:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting recipes as a cookbook would offer, just information like Salmon#As food has. Even though RSs may be more difficult to find for this, it's not impossible. What you say about it being a gourmet specialty item would be good to note in the article, for instance. The idea of 'caviar or not caviar' also seems rather trivial and pedantic, but regardless the eggs of the American paddlefish are eaten. From what I've seen, there's plenty of good information and sources on how the fish is used for food in many areas of the world, and historically has seen culinary uses as well. As for writing FAs, take a look at Briarcliff Manor's article history. I (along with some reluctant reviewers) made it go from this to this FA, and even now I won't claim it's complete or perfect. I've actually been writing eighteen articles from scratch or start-class, and my work is nearly complete.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 23:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps when you're through with your GA review for Briarcliff Farms, you can add a new section here. FAs aren't PP, they remain open for improvement and expansion. Atsme☯^Consult 03:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Fossil record

User:Apokryltaros, the actual quote from the cited source (USGS) is "Paddlefish are one of the oldest fishes, with fossil records dating their first appearance at 300 to 400 million years ago (about 50 million years before the first dinosaurs appeared)."[2] I also have books authored by experts that confirm same but not here with me. Also, see Wisconsin DNR: [3] pg 7-91. I also cited new Yale study. The RS are in the 1st para, not in the lead as this is a FA.Atsme☯^Consult 16:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

That source directly contradicts information given on Polyodontidae and Acipenseriformes, which state that the earliest paddlefish fossils date back to the Late Cretaceous, and that the earliest Acipenseriform fossils from the Late Jurassic. And after further investigation on Book and Scholar-google, I think the cited source is in error, as I can find no information whatsoever on any Carboniferous paddlefish other than those websites that copy the Wisconsin source. That, and neither of the fish-family tree mentions 300 million year old paddlefish fossils.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I updated the sources in the first para. See [4]. When I first started updating some of the ancestral fish species articles there was substantial debate about whether or not they ~~were~~ actually retained primitive characters or were highly derived. As it turns out, Yale has confirmed the original belief they date back long before the dinosaurs as so many earlier experts believed and documented. I stopped editing the other articles, and focused on improving/updating this one for FA. I needed a break after the heated debates over the "primitive" issue and prefer not to debate it again. I've emailed Bill Hathaway at Yale in hopes he can direct us to more published, peer reviewed documentation. Atsme☯^Consult 18:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

So, then are we talking about actual paddlefish dating back to the Carboniferous, per molecular evidence?--Mr Fink (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

That's what it looks like. Oddly enough, it was information the experts kept telling us back in the 90s, then it was challenged and a new clade proposed, and now it's being challenged again. Before it's all said and done, they may confirm that paddlefish are sharks. It's the grandma's chicken soup story - they called it good for the soul believing it had no other benefit and now they're telling us it actually is good for a cold.

Atsme☯^Consult 19:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Paddlefish are sharks? What?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess you missed that part in the article.

Lacépède disagreed with Pierre Joseph Bonnaterre's description in Tableau encyclopédique et méthodique (1788), which suggested paddlefish were a species of shark. Atsme☯^Consult 23:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I read that part, but I thought it was long dismissed due to paddlefish's similarities with sturgeon. You mean to say they're reviving that now?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anything in science is "dismissed", at least not by all. Postponed, maybe? Science is what it is; i.e. systematic study. It's a lot like what I consider a conclusion; i.e. the point at which you got tired of thinking.

Atsme☯^Consult 23:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

So should we amend the article to say that they now think it's a cartilaginous fish (again)?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Paddlefish are almost entirely cartilaginous. However, before we make any substantial changes to a FA, let's wait until we get some peer reviewed journal entries from Yale, and see where that takes us. Depending on what we find, there exists the option that we present both sides, provided there are two sides. I think we should wait based on our no deadline decree. Atsme☯^Consult 23:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Certainly, I'm ultimately in no hurry. Though, Chondrostei is distinct from Chondrichthyes on a number of important anatomical points of greater important than whether or not the skeleton of chondrosteans were originally bony, or cartilaginous or a mix of the two. My main apprehension is that I wonder if the Wisconsin source actually means actual Carboniferous-aged paddlefish, or do they mean Carboniferous-aged chondrosteans or acipenseriforms.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll see what resources are available that we can use to make that determination. Atsme☯^Consult 00:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

PS: [5] Nothing like a few more questions. Atsme☯^Consult 00:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

COI

Per box at the top of this page, an editor has WP:SELFCITEd with regard to "earthwave". Those contribs need to be reviewed for NPOV and sourcing. Once the article is cleaned by an independent editor, the tag can be removed. If you do that, please leave a note here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I am retired - I have no relationship with American paddlefish. This is harassment.

Please see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Atsme.2C_Earthwave.2C_WP:SELFCITE.2C_Gabor_B._Racz I won't be interacting with you further on this, except to reply once at these various talk pages. Jytdog (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

If he continues to harass you, you should take him to WP:ANI or WP:RFAR. GregJackP Boomer! 07:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Some problems with the opener

As a phylogeneticist, the opener of this article makes me cringe. First, the terms 'basal' and 'primitive' are both antiquated and misleading at best or simply wrong at worst. Every organism has been subjected to evolution for an equally long time, so nothing is 'basal' or 'primitive' in regards to anything else. 'Early diverging' is widely agreed to be a much more fitting term for what is intended by these words. Second, cartilage is probably not a 'primitive' (eeek!) character for fish, but rather it likely a 'derived' character only found primarily in the Chondrichthyes because it is absent in earlier diverging lineages (see here A Silurian placoderm with osteichthyan-like marginal jaw bones) 24.8.94.39 (talk) 15:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

WP welcomes Input from scientists, academics and numerous other professionals - thank you for sharing your thoughts - but please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a scientific journal, rather it relies on published material from reliable secondary sources and the like. See WP:Reliable The terms "basal" and "primitive" are ubiquitous, and are still being used in scientific research, particular when referring to the American paddlefish. While we consider published, peer reviewed journals as reliable sources, it is our job to make the information palatable for ALL readers. American paddlefish has undergone the scrutiny of several of Wikipedia's best reviewers before it was promoted to WP:FA. The information is accurate, but equally as important is its reading palatability. Also, you might want to read the following WP article: Primitive_(phylogenetics), and also the following from the Oxford Journals: [6] wherein it states: "It is now well established that paddlefish and sturgeons are bony fishes that occupy an interesting phylogenetic position. They represent one of the basal lineages of ray-finned fishes (fig. 1), and it is currently debated whether they are part of the sister clade of the teleosts (Inoue et al. 2002) or represent a basal lineage to the sister clade of teleosts (Kikugawa et al. 2004). Either way, they have been invoked as a key outgroup taxon for studies investigating and the evolution of teleosts because of their phylogenetic position (Metscher and Ahlberg 1999)." What would you propose changing in the lede? Atsme☯^Consult 18:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I also cringed when I saw "basal", in the same way I cringe when I read "living fossil". However, the article directs us to Basal (phylogenetics) and that article shows "basal" has a specific meaning. I guess both the terms have a nuance which some people (like myself) dislike, but their use is, technically accurate.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Units inconsistency

There is inconsistency in the use of whether SI or Imperial units are stated first in this article. My understanding is that SI units should be used preferentially. Because this is a featured article, I thought I would discuss before making any changes.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Consistency is of the utmost importance. I'm surprised it got by the reviewers but I understand how it might have happened. Please perform your SI magic. Atsme^📞📧 23:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American paddlefish. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150624063851/http://gf.nd.gov/fishing/other-fishing-information/paddlefish-snagging-season/paddlefish-questions-and-answers to http://gf.nd.gov/fishing/other-fishing-information/paddlefish-snagging-season/paddlefish-questions-and-answers

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) 02:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on American paddlefish. 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) 22:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)