Jump to content

Talk:100 of the World's Worst Invasive Alien Species

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Denounce (talk | contribs) at 22:44, 11 July 2012 (>>micro-organism<< type changed to >>virus<< type). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconEnvironment List‑class
WikiProject iconThis environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
ListThis article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Comment

How about the pigeon? It´s missing in the list... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luislazcano (talk • contribs) 22:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is the world's 100 worst invasive species as determined by the Invasive Species Specialist Group and they do not rank the pigeon. The pigeon is invasive but not as bad as the thousands of other invasive species. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The glaring omission of humans (Homo sapiens) in this list calls to question the methodology and criteria by which it was compiled, and weakens its credibility. Maybe this list doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but as an external link on some other page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinus jeffreyi (talk • contribs) 16:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is the world's 100 worst invasive species as determined by the Invasive Species Specialist Group. I considered the list notable enough for inclusion as a separate article. Homo sapiens are not included in the source list since the control of humans as invasive species is not an option. I fully agree with your sentiment that there are a huge number of environmental issues as a result of human activity but we make a clear distinction between humans and all other species. Although this is done for ethical reasons we must always see ourselves as a part of nature. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My above comment still stands even though you have amended your original comment. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who, exactly, are "we"? I don't draw any more distinction between humans and other species than I would between any two species. We are animals, pure and simple. Who cares if we have different forms of communication or knowledge storage. That doesn't entitle us to act as if we aren't in the animal Kingdom. It just gives credibility to the idea that the whole invasive species movement is a big scapegoat for ourselves, with little, if any, real science behind it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.230.48 (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article fits in with WP policies. WP documents the facts and it up to the reader to form their own worldview. I would like to draw your attention to the Human impact on the environment article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another Comment

I don't understand the logic of listing the common name of each specie in a wide variety of languages. Common names in English are obviously appropriate, however, as it stands one has to read through several non-English names to discover what the animals in question actually are. This is the English Wikipedia - we don't care what foxes are called in German, French, or Italian, we just want to know that Vulpes vulpes is a fox! 64.206.63.50 (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)tiktok[reply]

Hmmm. Yeah. Point taken. I created the page as a cut'n'paste and I never considered removing the non-English names. I think on balance they should stay. It will help with an search requests on a particular foreign name. Also, can we determine objectively which names should be kept? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see that some of the commonly used English names are being bolded. This is a good idea and it should be done for all the species. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Names in other languages are good because many languages do not have a comprehensive Wikipedia as english does so we use english. It is a good resource. I like the way English names are either hyperlinked or boldfaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.189.128.12 (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Homo Sapiens

  • What about homo sapiens? Aren't we the worst invasive species in the world? Sorry, already appeard under the "Comment" section, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.222.96.105 (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Need two things in this list

    This list is missing both where the species is invading from and where it is invading to...71.251.66.112 (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    A virus is not a microorganism

    I corrected all entries in the >>Type<< column. --Denounce (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:100_of_the_World%27s_Worst_Invasive_Alien_Species&oldid=501795067"