Talk:Fish as food/Archive 1

Que?[edit]

This sentence, under health hazards/biotoxins, "These fish always contain these poisons as a defense against predators; it is not present due to environmental circumstances." is confusing and self-contradictory. Besides, I think the fugu article says something quite different. Can someone correct this? --GoofyLittleWonder196 (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

banal sentence explaining that a cooked fish is still called fish[edit]

Cooked things are still called by their name be it fish, potato, crab or broccoli. It would be best to remove this banal sentence from the lead. Bhny (talk) 05:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fish doesn't have to be cooked, it merely has to be ready for eating. And the point is not "banal". Other meats are often not called by their name in English when they are prepared for eating. Did you read the section on terminology? --Epipelagic (talk) 06:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I merged terminology into the lead. I still think it is banal to say fish is called fish after (or before?) it is cooked, as if this is a surprise. It is better to say English does not distinguish between fish as an animal and the food prepared from it, as it does with pig versus pork or cow versus beef. Bhny (talk) 06:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's exactly what the article said from the outset. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on Fish as food[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on Fish as food which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.sgs.com/en/Our-Company/News-and-Media-Center/News-and-Press-Releases/2013/03/Detecting-Seafood-Fraud.aspx
Triggered by \bsgs\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Link removed. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fish_as_food I'm a little confused by this revert. The original version also has no references (except for one invalid one) and is quite inaccurate. Was this a mistake, or should I go over my reasoning line by line? --Juventas (talk) 05:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is stuff you just made up all by yourself, which is tiresome and time-wasting. You have got things, like "fish does not refer to non-fish seafood in any context" and "seafood is not a word used for freshwater fish", so wrong I wouldn't know where to start. You really shouldn't just make stuff up unless you have at least a bit of background. If you must, elaborate on your fantasies line by line. Also, state clearly what you imagine is incorrect in the original version. But first, before you reply, carefully read the rest of the article, as well as the articles on seafood and fisheries. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply, but let's be respectful.

First sentence: defines what the subject is. The original version says, "consumed...by many species", which I edited out. This article is about people consuming fish. There is nothing in the article about other animals consuming fish.

Second sentence. I changed "protein" to "nourishment". Fish provides many nutrients other than protein, including several considered "high value". The article reflects this repeatedly.

Before I continue, I look forward to your hear what you think. --Juventas (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is the blatant misrepresentation that I have no respect for. You seem to be glossing over your misrepresentation as though you are not responsible for it. Yes the article is about fish used as food for humans. There is now a confusion because someone removed the hatnote that cleared up the confusion, so I have restored the hatnote. Of course there are nutrients other than proteins in fish, but it is the protein that has been of central dietary importance, both historically and currently, to many human groups. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you agree that the lead needed to indicate that the article was about food for people!

Third sentence. Any dictionary I referenced defined fish in the context of food as "the flesh of fish", and outside that context as the vertebrate animal. The best reference I could find about language of fish and seafood was a US FDA guidance document that says, "Although The Fish List had significant success in achieving its goal, its usefulness was limited because it did not include invertebrate species. In 1993, The Fish List was revised to include the acceptable market names for domestic and imported invertebrate species sold in interstate commerce, and renamed The Seafood List." Do you have better references that refer to non-vertebrates as fish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juventas (talk • contribs) 01:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is plain silly. Of course non-vertebrates are not fish in the modern taxonomical sense, and no reliable source would ever claim that they are. But in the area of fisheries and fish marketing, which is the area that fish as food belongs to, things are more flexible. This is not a scientific area, but a commercial area rooted in historical antecedents where the term fish tends to apply to any aquatic animal (even aquatic mammals). For example, most fish markets sell shellfish, which are invertebrates. The people who capture crabs, lobsters and shrimp all call themselves fisherman, and say they are fishing. This is why there is a measure of flexibility in the article. Read some of the associated articles and learn a little about the area instead of blind Googling. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fish as food. 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/20090519200853/http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/admehg3.html to http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/admehg3.html

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 06:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fish as food. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 05:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fish as food. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 16:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetarians[edit]

The article currently contains a paragraph defining meat before saying that "Vegetarians do not eat fish, and consider that fish is meat, since it is the flesh of an animal." The point of this seems to be to point out that "meat" might or might not include fish. But why does it matter? There is no reason to even use the word "meat". It then continues with a definition of veganism and ovo-lacto vegetarians, which is irrelevant since they are both kinds of vegetarians, and therefore if vegetarians don't eat fish, then vegans and ovo-lacto vegetarians don't either. Similarly, there is no need to say that Jain vegetarianism, etc., also forbid eating fish.

I simplified this to say simply "Since fish is animal flesh, vegetarians do not eat it." After all, this is the Fish as food article, not the vegetarianism article. My edit was reverted by @Epipelagic:, with the comment "revert unsourced and potentially provocative change – these distinctions are important to some people". First of all, I'll point out that the existing text has no source for the statement "vegetarians do not eat fish", only for the completely irrelevant definition of meat in the meat-packing industry. Secondly, I don't see how this is provocative; in what way? Third, of course these distinctions are important to many people. But they are not relevant to whether vegetarians eat fish, which is the topic of this article. --Macrakis (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Epipelagic: --Macrakis (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether fish is considered as meat or not is irrelevant to whether vegetarians eat it. In fact, the Vegetarian Society explicitly says that pescetarians do not eat meat but do eat fish, implying that they do not consider fish to be meat: "Individuals who avoid meat but continue to consume fish are known as pescetarians."[1]. In other places on their site, they explicitly list "meat, fish, ...". They talk about "foods for which an animal had to die". For example, fish eggs (caviar) are not vegetarian -- even though they are neither meat nor fish -- because they are collected from killed fish, as opposed to poultry eggs, which are collected from live hens. --Macrakis (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should have let it slide. I have weary memories of interminable entanglements with users, insistent on both sides, over whether or not fish is meat (there is quite a strong tradition that says it is not), and whether or not people should eat it. I want to side-step the issue, but perhaps due to a transient brain ischemia (or is it early dementia), I idiotically reverted you instead. Please feel free to revert me. Or better, see if you can add something to the article that pacifies users of all persuasions and leaves this tiresome issue at peace. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think my wording does side-step the issue, which in any case is really not relevant to whether vegetarians eat fish or not. I'm not sure what more there is to add. By the way, today I came across "milked" caviar, which is produced without killing the sturgeon. That is presumably acceptable to vegetarians.... --Macrakis (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image[edit]

Well? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, I like A. It shows fish as food. Even though it is lower quality, it is only used for the lead image. There are more at commonscat. The B image is shot from directly above, and so has a 2D look. Plus, most of the pic is not the fish, but mat and cutlery and rice, etc. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commons searches[edit]

Here are some Commons search suggestion. Please add more if you like.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A looks gnarly, and is not a very high-quality image. B is more appealing, although sure the fish takes up a small portion of the photo. I also submit for consideration:

C
D
E

E
F
G

These three are of a very high quality, and the fish in them does not look grotesque, with cooked eyes or ragged charred skin, which A and B both have.

ɱ

(talk) 17:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like Anna above, I prefer the straightforwardness of A to the garish B. – Epipelagic (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great, but you and Anna aren't the only two people editing this article. Stop edit warring and do not keep adding back your favored image over the longstanding image, ignoring my and others' warnings. Take it to talk means just that. Do not edit this article until a broad consensus is found here, or you may be blocked for edit warring.

ɱ

(talk) 03:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ɱ. We're not edit warring. Please assume good faith. If you check the article history, you will see this is about block evasion by Geoffreyrabbit. I encourage all to check that user's contribs and watchlist pages. Expect more IP edits by that person, trying to force the image of their choice into articles. See user's talk for exhaustive efforts to sort this out amicably. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is false, per my talk page and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring where I had to take you all.

ɱ

(talk) 15:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E is not bad. However, the colour of the veggies above are nearly the same as the fish colour, so the absence of contrast, and surface of the fish, make it a bit harder to see. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Early on in the history we had an image of baked fish which was cluttered and difficult to distinguish the fish. Then, for a very long time, we had an image of fish and chips (F above) which is possibly one of the better known fish dishes in the world, but the fish was, of course, obscured by batter. Subsequently we has an image of Tilapia (at G above) which although over photo-shopped - did at least show one of the more common food fish on a plate in reasonable quality. I would be content to go with E but would prefer G if it isn't sourced back tour lagomorphic friend. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G was something I found and added in 2015; E was something I found yesterday.

ɱ

(talk) 15:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak: @Epipelagic: Can you vote considering there are now 7 options? $ɱ$ (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm voting for C, D, or E, as they are of the highest resolution and clarity, no graininess, and well-framed. They likewise are not gnarly, with grotesque cooked eyes or ragged charred skin. A, B, and G are grotesque and of poor quality. F does not look like fish. $ɱ$ (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is true, as ɱ has accused me, that I have perpetrated the crime of largely writing this article, and have dared to express views counter to the views held by ɱ. ɱ is engaged in odious dramah productions here and here. I don't want any association with such nonsense, so I have taken this article off my watch list.

Great, thanks. I am just trying to do the right thing. Edit warring isn't allowed here; you should've taken it to the talk page on January 1, not March 26 and still with continued edit warring. When people disagree with you, it's not your article, so your word is not law. You need to be able to discuss contentious changes with others, and not just throw your arms up in the air and leave when we finally start.

ɱ

(talk) 18:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Current preference - Still prefer A, could live with G, would like to see other choices, on the verge of not caring anymore. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking for other choices and will post them here soon. Leviv ich 21:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More fish[edit]

H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R

For your consideration. Leviv ich 00:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you for fishing those out of Commons, Levivich. I think I like O better than A. Although it is terribly vertical, it certainly has more colour than the very blueish A. Now, I'm getting very hungry and have to go for a while... Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fish and Shellfish poisoning table[edit]

In the shellfish category of the table in the Neurotoxic row, the sentence that says "Vomiting and nausea and a variety of neurological symptoms..." should take out the first "and" so that the list flows better. Instead say "Vomiting, nausea, and a variety of neurological symptoms..." to make the sentence more grammatically correct. --Sy2520 (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]