Talk:Beluga (sturgeon)

message: Isn't there something about beluga sturgeons now being raised in fish farms outside of Russia and surrounding countries? I heard something about fish farms raising these in Florida. Liist 00:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. It seems like nearly every paragraph has a comparison with the Mekong catfish or some other fish, which is confusing and quite unnecessary. I guess I'm guilty of this myself, having added the Ocean Sunfish comparison... oh, well. PenguinJockey 15:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussions from 2006 and 2007

message: 1. the bit about living up to 150 years is a myth. sturgeons live at a maximum of about 80 years.
2. the bit about it being the largest freshwater fish with "unconfirmed reports" is a bunch of shit  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.211.169.9 (talk) 04:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have modified the age to match that given by Fishbase. Regardless of the truth of unconformed reported max. size, they are worthy of inclusion in the article, as long as it is clear they are unconfirmed (exactly as done in published sources). This is no different to claimed max. size in the majority of other large species, be that Lions, Elephants, Arapaimas, Blue Whales, Green Anaconda, etc, etc. Rabo3 (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: this needs cleaning

message: Assessed mid-importance for WikiProject Fishes because of conservation status.  Neil916 (Talk) 23:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: This article talk page was automatically added with 
 banner as it falls under :Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum caution and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform the project members on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 07:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: This is an article about a fish and is not a soapbox. George Bush did the exact same thing (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2002/05/26/White-House-Watch-Caviar-Anyone/UPI-52531022432825/) and so has probably every world leader who has visited Russia but as far as this article is concerned it's not within it's scope and would turn it into a pointless collection of people who've eaten caviar (once as a guest of a 'good' producer of the product??) rather than about the fish itself. See WP:NOT or pretty much any other article on an animal for further information and why the addition is inappropriate. RutgerH (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This entry is also about showing how the fish is endangered and why it is endangered. If you like you should post the Bush article and a snippet from it also. Stop deleting important information. Not sure if you noticed but the fish is endangered and if you censor talk about it then you will never see a resolution to solve the problem. This posting isnt an attack against Obama, it is to make a point that our world leaders do not take seriously the endangerment of species. If we follow your way of thinking then we should remove any information on the beluga sturgeon that says it is endangered. To sit there and say there is a problem and not talk about why it is a problem is a waste of time and pointless to solving the problem.--Juniorxin (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  President Obama eats caviar 

message: A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines: Academics, Books, Criminal acts, Films, Music, Numbers, Organizations & companies, People, and Web content.
If a species is endangered and you kill it you are committing a crime. It is a Criminal Act and falls under Wikipedia's definition of notability.  --Juniorxin (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Billions of people eat fish and so the act of eating a fish isn't notable unless under special circumstances. The leader of a country being served a farmed product as the invited guest of another country isn't special and certainly isn't a criminal act. PETA has nothing to say on this which I'm guessing for those reasons. Two users don't make an overwhelming concensus but it still is one so accept it. RutgerH (talk) 06:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, please stop Juniorxin.  There is no real debate as to the non-notable nature of this addition, and you are in danger of violating 3RR (, , ).  We can get more feedback on this from more people, but that is a tedious process and a waste of time and there is zero chance that your addition will remain. There are many useful contributions that could be made to this article, regarding the ecology, behavior, history, cultural value, exploitation, etc. of the species, but yours is not one of them.  Best,  Eliezg (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

text:  I have shown you based on Wikipedia rules of notability that it is worthy of staying posted but you give no feedback on why it should be removed based on your reasons. If anyone is violating 3RR rules it is you not me. The is no consensus on this because you have deleted the posting without starting a discussion. I am the one that had to start the discussion because you all deleted the posting which I might add is vandalism. --76.73.154.119 (talk) 04:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

text:  Explain how killing an endangered species is not a criminal act? Based on Wikipedia rules a criminal act is notable and can be posted. You are not suppose to delete postings without discussing them first. Please answer my question. --76.73.154.119 (talk) 04:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

text:  Please stop deleting this without discussion. And if you want a consensus you need to get more people involved in this discussion. Deleting postings without discussion is vandalism. --76.73.154.119 (talk) 04:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Deletion without discussion is not vandalism a priori.  Violate the three revert rule and you will be blocked.  Please note that the removed text also was also a copyright violation, and certainly outside of the manual of style.  Adding it back verbatim is certainly prohibited and may result in a block.  As for the content, I am unclear on why this should be added to the article?  If it merely because of your determination of illegal activity, it constitutes original research.  Neither source reported that Obama's actions were illegal.  That determination can not be made in Wikipedia; it must come from an outside reliable source.  Please also note that calling the act criminal without a source indicating it is, strictly speaking, a violation of the biography of living person policy.  Is there another reason to include this material in the article?  If you need additional input, feel free to look at dispute resolution.  If you have any questions, let me know.  --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Notability 

message: Basic information to add to this article:  the literal meaning/etymology of the word huso. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: To add to article

message: — Assignment last updated by Wrestlegirl (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Journal Club