Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

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

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]
Insufficient explanation. Fact #1, Homo sapien sapiens are a species of animal on planet Earth. Fact #2, Homo sapien sapiens fulfill all non-anthropocentric biological standards for an invasive species. By presenting the anthropocentric criteria you are projecting an anthropocentric worldview, which is what you claim to be trying to avoid (affecting worldviews). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F140:400:2166:CCE4:DEB9:3930:5FE4 (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another species that reads Wikipedia might have grounds for complaint, but Anonymous here doesn't. Members of homo sapiens sapiens have no standing to object to a humanistic or anthropocentric POV. As far as we have been able to discover, there is no other POV. When another POV makes itself known, that will be time enough to consider revising Wikipedia—assuming that invasive species doesn't kill us all first. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the omission of humans (Homo sapiens) is a GLARING omission and greatly weakens the credibility of the list and any commentary about it.
Making a clear distinction between humans and all other species is highly anthropocentric and biased. Claiming the distinction is done for ethical reasons is further evidence of anthropocentric bias; this is an exercise in speciesism. I'd love to know other species' response to the ethical justification for this distinction, or, better yet, how the human species would respond if some other species exercised similar speciesism. 2601:4C1:4000:F290:F179:A4AE:DD8C:15D3 (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non-English Names (was 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]

I agree that it makes no sense to list the common names of various species in languages other than English, unless the foreign names are also widely used in English-speaking countries. As for 192.189.128.12's point, how many of the foreign names on this list come from languages without their own Wikipedias? Hard to tell, because the languages in question aren't identified! Even if there are many, having them here serves no real purpose, except to satisfy the urge to catalogue. If a speaker of, say, Xhosa wants to find out the English name of Acacia mearnsii, she's not going to look it up in this list: she's going to search for Acacia mearnsii and read the article on that plant. The foreign terms should be deleted unless they are widely used by English-speakers, or there is no English term, in which case the most common term in the species's native habitat or the invaded habitat, or both, should be used.
I do endorse the addition of hyperlinks to the English terms. Boldface type should not be necessary, because there shouldn't be so many non-English terms requiring such a distinction. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:18, 12 May 2014 (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]

    The Honey Bee!

    "No Apis species existed in the New World during human times before the introduction of Apis melifera by Europeans. " [1]

    Is this a list for just the uncomfortable ones? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwweeks (talk • contribs) 18:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a list of the 100 worst invasive species, so yeah, just the ones that make us uncomfortable. While honey bees are technically an invasive species in the New World, nobody seems to mind them (except maybe the native bees they presumably displaced), and they're a vital component of our agriculture, so one wouldn't expect to find them on this list. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 19:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey_bee

    Should this article be here?

    I highly question whether or not this article should even be here. It see "worst" is a highly subjective term and the article makes no effort in defining worst. This seems rather sensational... I have never deleted a wiki article but I would be pretty okay if someone got ride of this. Seems very subjective and the other comments seem to reflect this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdk780 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I would say that the validity of this article depends on the authority of the organization that issues the list, something I'm willing to presume unless and until somebody questions it. Certainly invasive species, as a topic, is notable and deserving of at least one article. An article on that topic, however, ought merely to describe and explain the phenomenon in general, and perhaps list a few typical or especially noteworthy examples; but should not attempt to catalogue all the examples in the world, or even a large number of them. It is therefore useful also to have an article, like this one, that merely lists invasive species, with basic information on each. Whether or not this particular list belongs on Wikipedia, again, depends on the authority of the organization that propounded it.
    It would be useful if the article told more about the organization, how the list is compiled, what the criteria for inclusion are, who gets a vote, how rank is determined, etc.
    Given that the whole concept of invasive species pretty much presumes that they are bad, I see no objection to ranking them according to relative badness, and presenting the 100 worst of them here. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 19:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposals for Revision

    1. Rename the Article. The article should be named, "List of the 100 Worst Invasive Species", or "The IUCN Invasive Species Specialist Group's List of the 100 Worst Invasive Species", or simply, "The 100 Worst Invasive Species". The article offers one organization's subjective judgment as to the 100 worst invasive species. It should be presented as that and nothing more. If "globally invasive" has any meaning at all (other than merely, "in the world"), a list of "globally invasive species" ought to list species that have invaded the entire globe, presumably from somewhere else. No such species exists (even among terrestrial species, except perhaps some microorganisms), so it would be difficult to list them.
    2. Remove non-English common names unless they are widely used among English speakers, or there is no English term. This is the English Wikipedia, and it's silly to catalogue foreign names for each invasive species. See discussion above.
    3. Add to each entry on the list its native habitat, the regions it has invaded, its mechanism of invasion, and the most significant effects of invasion (ecological, economic, epidemiological, etc.).

    If I knew more about the subject, I would do all this myself, but I don't, so I hope if my arguments are persuasive somebody else will be moved to implement these proposals. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I disagree with renaming that article. Its title is List of globally invasive species This means there is nothing to stop others adding further invasive species if they have a reference. Tommy Pinball (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    But what does "globally" mean in the title? What invasive species are not "globally invasive"? As far as I can tell, all the title means is, "list of invasive species 'in the world'". Since all known species are in the world, "globally" adds nothing to the title.
    Conceivably, "globally" could indicate that there are "globally invasive species" and "locally invasive species", which would mean that these species have invaded every corner of the globe, whereas the other invasive species have invaded only limited areas. As far as I'm aware, there are no species (at least above the microscopic level) that have invaded every corner of the globe, and the creatures on this list certainly have not, so even if that were what the title meant it would be inaccurate here.
    The list given here is expressly a ranked list created by a specific body of experts. Adding other species to it would require rewriting the lede and reorganizing the list to eliminate any suggestion of ranking, and to make the IUCN Invasive Species Specialist Group only one of several authorities. This article would become simply a catalogue of invasive species according to the editors of Wikipedia. There are plenty of similar lists of things on Wikipedia, so I can't say that would be inappropriate, but it would certainly be less interesting and more subject to editing wars. Should it include human beings? A lot of people are very emotional about that question, and turning this into a general catalogue of invasive species would invite endless controversy over it. If there's widespread desire for such a catalogue, somebody should create it in a separate article, and this one, with a more appropriate title, should remain the IUCN Invasive Species Specialist Group's ranked list. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This edit Changed the title from one that you suggest. If you want it changed, change it back; I don't feel strongly enough to edit war, I'm simply comfortable with the distinction between "globally invasive" and "locally invasive". Personally, if I wanted to add another species, I would follow the guidance Wikipedia:JFDI and rewrite the lede. What does "globally" mean in the title? What invasive species are not "globally invasive"? These questions are better asked at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Should it include human beings?: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities Tommy Pinball (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Clean-Up

    Should someone be clearing out all the foreign terms?Correctron (talk) 05:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, please. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 14:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Separate animal and vegetable

    Wouldn't it help make the article more readable to separate animal from vegetable? I.e., two consecutive lists. Jidanni (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested move 15 January 2019

    The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

    The result of the move request was: move. (closed by non-admin page mover) feminist (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    List of globally invasive species → 100 of the World's Worst Invasive Alien Species – Move to the proper title of the list which was published by the Global Invasive Species Database. And delete the redirect "List of globally invasive species" as fallacious. — Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 17:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support. It's a global database of invasions, not a database of global invasions. (The article and its reference prefer the term "worldwide", anyway.) 62.165.227.102 (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

    Norway rats

    It's remarkable that the Norway rat (brown rat) is not on this list. I suppose it's the criteria used. Should there be more discussion of that? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I don't think you are wrong about its failure to be included. Some of the most invasive species known to North America or the United States have been seemingly left entirely out of this list, such as the Brown Rat... It appears that the list includes many species now found in Australian and New Zealand, most likely because of the English-speaking writers that contributed to the article (although the parent organization is located in France), than any real considerations about what invasive species to include. There's no mention of the Tree of Heaven, for example, a very problematic invasive tree species endemic to Asia, but introduced into the US in 1788, that is killing the forests in the U.S. There's also no mention about all of the invasive tropical species that have been introduced to Florida and South Carolina. The list and rankings seem to be purely arbitrary and meaningless, but they are published by the IUCN with little supporting information. Much of the published information by the IUCN doesn't even include locations of the invasive species or histories of their international dispersal. However, there are plenty of isolated or inconsequential species that are included in the IUCN's list of 100 Invasive Species. Possibly, there are other organizations that have more complete and meaningful lists that could or should be added to Wikipedia's library of articles, to enable a broader balance of this article's seeming arbitrariness... Stevenmitchell (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This article is very arbitrary

    I have a slight suspicion that this article may be a bit biased. 47.197.29.147 (talk) 05:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    How are cats "native to nowhere"

    Cats are a descendant of the near eastern wildcat and the European wildcat. I don't see how they can be native to nowhere unless they are literally aliens. 47.197.29.147 (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Use Fresh Ingredients. Baking soda should be no more than six months old. Don't Overstir the Batter. ... No Buttermilk, No Problem! ... Cook on a Hot Surface. ... Know When to Flip. ... Serve Warm. 100.6.105.215 (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:100_of_the_World%27s_Worst_Invasive_Alien_Species