Talk:Atlantic menhaden

message: The illustration appears to be distorted. Aspect ratio should be increased 20% or so, in life this is a relatively slim fish with proportions similar to those of a Bluefish.
I added a physical description, fishing methods, and combined use paragraphs as fishmeal, oil and fertilizer. It is, of course, most valuable as fish meal and least as fertilizer. SEIBasaurus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SEIBasaurus  (talk • contribs)  20:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is important to remember that Franklin has not written his article from an objective viewpoint.  A better source of information would be a NGO or government website...www.asmfc.org would be a good place to start.  I plan to add much more information to this in about two weeks.    Patriothntr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.195.191.71 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: comment

message: References (Goode 1887) and (ASMFC 2005) were added to the text but not to the references section. What are they? Goode 1887 is perhaps  but there were several ASMFC publications in 2005. Gdr 14:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing references 

message: An image used in this article, File:ImagesCA5OU9VC.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:ImagesCA5OU9VC.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://fishtheisland.com/Species/Menhaden/menhadenProfile.pdf. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: , an editor who works for Saving Seafood (see the editor's user page), a fishing industry trade organization, recently joined WP and has been directly editing this and other articles. I have placed a COI tag on this article.  Once an independent editor has reviewed changes made by Tzjones for NPOV and sourcing, the tag can be removed.  Please make a note here when you do that.  Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: COI tag

message: The article does not mention the overwhelming opinion that proper regulation of the fishery needs to enforce a minimum size limit to allow smaller menhaden to filter feed until they or too large to have significant impact on water quality.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.237.235 (talk) 03:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your note!  Do you have any reliable sources that we could use to support such content?  Jytdog (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: feeding

message: Hi,
I am not an appropriate editor because I lack the scientific expertise, but this article appears to selectively emphasize evidence favorable to the commercial menhaden fishery and does not include evidence of the ecological importance of menhaden nor the current battle over the Virginia reduction fishery. Here is an example of an article that references some of the missing evidence. I do not have access to the primary scientific literature. 
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/analysis/2016/07/28/10-reasons-to-maintain-the-atlantic-menhaden-catch-limit-in-2017
How do I ask for help about this, because it is a critically important fish and Wikipedia is not living up to its best promise with this article. 
Thank you!
108.56.240.66 (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article appears to be biased 

message: This article heavily favors commercial fisheries and the reduction fishing industry, and the edits were made by a user with close ties to the reduction fishing industry despite the editors claimed "neutrality". It suggests that because the fishing industry has a low number of bycatches it is therefore a sustainable and eco-friendly industry, while the removal of menhaden from the Chesapeake Bay has negatively impacted the fertility of many other species and overall lead to declining bay health. Friends of the Sea, the organization the previous editor is associated with, is primarily financed through companies purchasing the rights to use its logo on their products, so Friends of the Sea clearly has a financial interest in declaring that menhaden are not susceptible to overfishing despite historical evidence.
It includes incorrect information that menhaden consume or prefer zooplankton based on articles that draw no such conclusion in order to further the goal of suggesting menhaden are not crucial to the health of Atlantic bays. It fails to mention that reduction fishing has been banned in all Atlantic states except Virginia and North Carolina. It fails to discuss any of the historical controversy or dramatic decrease in the menhaden population in the 19th and 20th centuries as a result of overfishing.
This article is in drastic need of a complete rewrite that acknowledges the menhaden's importance in bay health and the controversies.
https://archive.org/details/mostimportantfis0000fran/
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/11/science/menhaden-chesapeake-bay-fishing.html
43.225.189.109 (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The current request is not specific enough to make changes to the page. Consider developing changes in a new talk section or visit the conflict of interest noticeboard for serious issues.   Spintendo  22:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request edit on 18 July 2023 

message: Hey there seems to be a typo when discussing manhaden feeding as it pertains to life cycle stage & which type of plankton it feeds on. Under the Diet section it currently says "When the rakers are smaller, which generally correspond to when they are under the age of 1, Atlantic menhaden feed primarily on zooplankton. As they age and their gill rakers grow larger, menhaden shift their diet to primarily consume phytoplankton." --> This needs to be swapped such that it reads:  larval menhaden eat (the smaller) phytoplankton and then as they age up switch their diets to primarily zooplankton. 74.95.121.126 (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction Needed - Life Cycle & Plankton