Talk:Fishing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Cscr-former.svg Fishing is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Water sports (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Fishing is within the scope of the WikiProject Water sports, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Water sports. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of fisheries, aquaculture and fishing. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can register your interest for the project and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 
Version 0.5      (Rated B-Class)
Peer review This Everydaylife article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1

Cultural Impact[edit]

I added some info relating fishing to major religions to the cultural impact section. I will add more later and round out the references. - Melanie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melanie-dash (talkcontribs) 21:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

I don't know how to revert pages, but someone has vandalized the "Recreational Fishing" portion of this article. Someone needs to fix this. Cereal Box Conspiracy 20:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article Status[edit]

This article did not make it to featured article status. That is a pity, perhaps the application was a little premature. Still, Fishing does have the makings a very good and possible feature-quality article. Let us see it we can do it! Gaius Cornelius 22:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Anglers Rest Image[edit]

Hi!

Anglers Rest, a popular recreational fishing destination on the Cobungra River - Removed image

I'm just a visitor to this article, and before I start a revert war I'd like to put it up for discussion: Should the Anglers Rest Image be included? Personally I feel it is valuable because it shows a popular recreational fishing river. But lets see what the community thinks. --Fir0002 22:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The picture is not appropriate here. Removing it was the right thing to do. Gaius Cornelius 17:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Gaius Cornelius, and support the removal. Arnejohs 19:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Surf fishing[edit]

is missing. Or is it listed by another name, if so I missed it. Montara State Beach has surf fishing. meatclerk 05:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what surf fishing is. If it is essentially and 'invented sport' then, if it belongs anywhere in Wikipedia, it would be more appropriate under angling or sport fishing. If it is a very popular sport, or is some other way notable, it might deserve an article of its own. Gaius Cornelius 07:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Your note raises an interesting general point: what does and what does not belong in the fishing article. I would say that the article should reflect the practice of fishing throughout the world and throughout history and that the techniques mentioned should be economically or culturally significant to the people who practice it. To this might be added practices that are scientifically significant. Some feedback to establish the consensus would be helpful here. Gaius Cornelius 07:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If this helps, Surf Fishing is essentially line fishing, but you are casting into the surf. I'm not sure what one will catch, as I've never done this. It would also fit under native american fishing, also oddities, like some movies show this, even tv shows. So, is it a valid fishing method? I'm not 100% sure, but I can bet State of California has laws for it. meatclerk 09:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Surf fishing is a form of angling and, if it merits a home on Wikipedia, should probably live in the angling article. One might also argue that surf fishing really is a form of recreational fishing, since I'm not aware of any subsistence or commercial fisheries that use surf fishing. I think it's inappropriate to try to list every type of angling or every conceivable sort of net or, whatever, in the fishing article. In my opinion, the fishing article should be about fishing in the broadest sense of that word. There are, or should be, other articles to amplify specific kinds of fishing. See, the way I see the hierarchy is this: the fishing article is about the elements that are common to all types of fishing and not about any specific form of fishing. A descendant of the fishing article is the angling article which is about the elements common to all types of angling, whether that be commercial long-line angling fisheries or fly-fishing for sport or any other form of angling. A descendant of the angling article might be the recreationl fishing article which is about the elements that are common to all forms of recreational fishing, etc, etc, etc. Of course, this is only my vision so I'd welcome anyone to tell me I'm full of excrement. — Dave 13:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Now, that I have had some sleep - I am fairly confident I could find a reference for commercial surf fishing, as well as native american surf fishing. I believe it does belong under the modern angling section for recreational fishing. Now that I've had some sleep on this, the things one could catch include eel, and salmon.

On that commercial surf fishing there should be some material. Eel on the surf is common. Some use "pokie poles" and local fishermen from Pillar Point (north of Half Moon Bay, CA) have been known for this and surf fishing. Chinese were known for all types of fishing on the coast, from Half Moon Bay to San Francisco. SF has a "China Beach" which was an early fishing village in a ravine. They used it to avoid being beaten up by white bigots - well known local history. They did surf fishing along with abalone and whaling.

To all this I'm sure there is commerial surf fishing from New Jersey (sp?) to Florida, however now mostly recreational - as is here now. meatclerk 16:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Surf fishing is very popular in South East Queensland Australia. The majority of participants are recreational. Surf Fishing is undertaken regularly as a formal competitive sport - but most participants are undertaking fishing as a recreational past time. The opening line of this article presents the definition of fishing as hunting for fish. I don't associate fishing necessarily with hunting. We also have fishing here as part of indiginous livliehoods and also commercial surf fishing. We have people who undertake fishing from their surf boards - instead of casting. Sit around with a line while waiting for the waves to come through. Popular commercial surf fishing is for Sea Mullet. Recreational species for us that cause a frenzy are Tailor. When the tailor are running you can see 4WDs parked on the beach like a shopping centre and people standing shoulder to shoulder fishing into a gutter into the surf - how the lines don't tangle more often then they do is a mystery. Other fish that are commonly caught in the surf at any time of year include dart, bream, whiting and flathead. We often experience conflict between surf fishing, surfing and swimming all targeting the same beach at the same time. 22 December 2006 (SEQ Guest)

saltwater fishing.[edit]

This text was added to the article; it needs to be cleaned up before being included.

Saltwater fishing is classified in two groups. Group A inshore which includes canals, bays, beach, ... THe many variety of fish include snook, redfish, and sea trout as the most popular inshore fish in florida though there are many more. As for group B which is offshore that includes the Oceans and Gulfs. In Florida some of the popular fish include grouper, snapper, dolphin (mahi mahi) and more. Most offshore fishing takes larger boats inorder to counter act the high intensity of the waves. As for inshore fishing which takes a very boyant boat some are called a flats boat.Depending on the type of fishing and species of fish someone is targeting will depend on the tackle and bait needed. -- phoebe 07:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC) fishing is a very important part of the way of life in Mali. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.71.88 (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Lists of fishing ports by country[edit]

Does this list exist? List of North American fishing ports, List of Brazilian fishing ports, List of Thai fishing ports, List of eastern Pacific ocean fishing ports? I live near New Bedford, Massachusetts and every year the port finishes in the top ten, for the USA. --McTrixie 21:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ask for translation[edit]

Fishing reel.svg

I have drawn this diagram, but I do not know the name of the parts in English, maybe somebody can provide a caption and a use for this image. Chabacano 23:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks to the anonymous helper :) Chabacano 14:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup necessary[edit]

The article needs some cleaning up. There's a lot of random bolding and redundancies in areas, while some sections require rewriting in a more encyclopedic tone. Isopropyl 04:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Very true. The section on recreational fishing is disproportionately long. Part of this article's problems are caused by well-meaning but lazy contributors who do not seem to bother with reading the whole article before adding inappropriate content; and the article attracts vandals and spam linkers. Perhaps we could get it semi-protected? Gaius Cornelius 12:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Merger from Sport fishing, potential for split along different lines[edit]

There had been a discussion to merge Sport fishing and Angling, but as sport fishing is not a subset of angling it does not make sense to merge them thus. I have therefore merged the info here under the "modern fishing" subsection.

However this article has become rather long, and already was before the addition of that information. Having "sport fishing" forked off on its own didn't seem to make a lot of sense, but a split somewhere else might be better. Perhaps fork out the entire "modern fishing" section into its own article? Arkyan(talk) 21:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Fishing Article Improvement[edit]

Please see Fishing Proposal Page for more information about other things to be done regarding this project


Its about time to put this task which is the need to lessen the size of the Fishing article without loosing any of the important information in our priority list. This move is still apart of our move to objective to thoughtfully organize articles on fishing (see WikiProject Fishing). I would like to ask for your (each and everyone concerned) help, assistance, and approval for this move. I am planning to do the following revisions right after your approval:

  • Truncate the Fishing nets section and link it to its existing main article by placing the tag: Main article: Fishing net before the paragraph. The information that will be removed from this section will be transfered to Fishing net, in this way, the Fishing net article will be expanded. done as of 5/9/2007
  • The Dredging section will be connected to Dredging's Fishing section. Further expansion to Dredging's Fishing section will then be done.
  • Truncate the Fishing lines section and and link it to its existing main article by placing the tag: Main article: Fishing line before the paragraph. The information that will be removed from this section will be transfered to Fishing line, in this way, the Fishing line article will be expanded. done as of 5/17/2007
  • I am currently doing an article, Kite fishing. Right after this is done and approved. I am also planning to truncate the Kite fishing section and link it to the main article which I am currently creating by placing the tag: Main article: Kite fishing before the paragraph. The information that will be removed from this section will be added to Kite fishing.
  • I wish to create another article for Modern Fishing and shortly discuss Recreational fishing, Sport fishing, Commercial fishing, and other subcategories regarding Modern fishing. These subcategories will then be linking to there existing main articles.
  • I wish to add more fishing related sections and link them to their main articles using the Main article: <main article title>

Please let me know what you think. Thank you and more power to us all. Bu b0y2007 05:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Un buen sitio de pesca[edit]

Pesca del Dorado en la Argentina / Fishing from Argentina

http://www.estancialabrava.com.ar —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.41.230.162 (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Fishing revisions[edit]

First of all, I would personally like to thank you for actively guarding our Fishing Project. I've seen all your efforts of protecting the Fishing article from those harmful vandals. I've recently made a major revision from all those revisions/reverts that were made previously by bots and other wikipedians because some of the important information there were lost despite the effort of each and everyone to guard the said article. Let us continue to protect all those excellent articles. Thanks and more power! Bu b0y2007 02:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sport fishing versus angling[edit]

I just made an edit to the "Recreational fishing" section of the article to make the "main" point to Sport fishing, as it truly should. Recreational and sport fishing are very nearly synonymous. Angling, on the other hand, is a method of fishing that can be used for recreational, sport, commercial fishing, etc. The trouble, as I see it, is that there are two sections, "Recreational fishing" and "Sport fishing" that really talk about the same thing save for a slight semantic distinction. Those two sections, in my opinion, should be collapsed. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 12:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutly right! Gaius Cornelius 13:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah that's true... Bu b0y2007 04:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed "squirrel fishing" section[edit]

I've deleted this section:


Squirrel fishing

Main article: Squirrel fishing

Squirrel fishing is the sporting practice of "catching" squirrels and attempting to lift them into the air using a peanut tied to a string or fishing line, and optionally some kind of fishing pole.

In most cases, squirrels playfully tug and grapple with the nuts, while the human participant skillfully angles with his or her quarry. A delicate approach is required in squirrel fishing. Anyone can pull a nut from the hands of a squirrel, but the adept "squirrel fisher" must hone his craft, maintaining balance between himself and the squirrel, and eventually rewarding the squirrel for his valiant competition by ceding the nut. Ideally, great care is taken not to overfeed squirrels, not to hit them with nuts, and not to treat them roughly.


It is completely out of place with the rest of the article.


16:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding Importance Rating[edit]

It could be debated (and edited and changed!) of course, but I'm assuming that Fishing is a Top-importance article to The Fishing Project.  ;) I've still got just a little testing to do, but if the template holds up we now have Importance classes in the fishing articles as well. See the Project talk for more details.

Aquatic Ape Theory[edit]

This theory has very little support among main-stream scientists. You can check the Wikipedia article on this as well, it also points out the strong scepticism against the theory. I believe the Aquatic Ape theory should be put under a category like Trivia and not at the beginning of the article, since this lends it more credibility than it deserves. Weeddude 10:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC) --Weeddude 10:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It was me that put it in in the first place, but I am inclinded to agree with you. Gaius Cornelius 16:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Fishing Assessment Drive[edit]

Added assessment template. LaughingVulcan 22:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Assessment complete. LaughingVulcan 02:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Illegal fishing[edit]

Wow i have to say I was entirly clueless about illegal fishing. The use of cyanide to stun fish to be used in aquariums i found perticularly amazing. Is there any way to stop this crime? I cannot imagine that it is good for the enviroment.

Fishing techniques[edit]

Those of you who monitor this page might be interested in Fishing techniques, created by a new user from their thesis work. It is in dire need of cleanup and may recreate some information already presented here. I wasn't sure what to do with it. Anyone want to take it on? --Rkitko (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Speciesist Tag[edit]

I believe the appropriate discussion of this tag and topic belongs on the article talk page. Howard C. Berkowitz

Fishing‎; 02:27 . . (-105) . . Hcberkowitz (Talk | contribs) (Removed speciesist tag until properly sourced text, supporting this position, is added to the article. Categories are not a place to express POV.)

Not a POV: from Speciesism: "Speciesism involves assigning different values or rights to beings on the basis of their species membership". You cannot tell me that catching fish for food, to eat, or otherwise is not assigning a lower value to fish on the basis of their species membership. What you need to do, is to compare what would happen if a human did this to another human. Please explain your position. -- Librarianofages 02:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
If you believe this to be true of fishing, then put it into the article, where it may be discussed and a consensus reached. It is your assertion that speciesism is relevant, so it is your responsibility to put the justification, not as original research or your opinion, but with sources as Wikipedia requires. There is nothing for me to explain about a position that I have not taken, other than it is not, as I understand, within the spirit of Wikipedia to put content in tags but not in the article. Editors are less likely to see the point if it is only a tag. If it is controversial, that controversy belongs on the talk page for the article.
No, I do not need to compare what would happen if a human did this to another human. No, I do not have to defend that speciesism is a meaningful position or a proper tag to assign. This should be presented to the Wikipedia community. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Fishing techniques section[edit]

At the moment, this section has nothing on line fishing or its various types such as fly fishing and lure fishing. All it has is a sentence on fishing lines, which is part of the tackle, not a technique. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Has splitting the whole section off been considered? I.e. an article fishing techniques, summarized here of course. Other possibilities that occur to me are recreational fishing and history of fishing. Richard001 (talk) 07:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

article overhaul[edit]

I was bold and gave the article a major overhaul. I think much of the techniques stuff should be restored, but I wasn't the best one to distill it. (Hopefully someone else can write a somewhat longer summary.) Feel free to put back stuff that you think should be included. Two sections I think need to be written are about subsistence fishing (only recreational and commercial fishing were covered) and about fishing culture, both for recreational fisherman and for fishing villages, etc. Mangostar (talk) 06:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Also missing is fishing between about 1000 AD and 1950 AD. Mangostar (talk) 07:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Too many edits[edit]

Mangostar - generally good editing, but making over 50 consecutive edits in two days is a bit of a problem since it makes it really hard to figure out what you've done and why. I started looking into this because your new EL is in violation of WP:ELLinks to be Avoided #10 - linking to an aggregate site. Can you go over your edits and describe what you've done and why on this talk page? I think it's generally a good idea to do that prior to undertaking so many changes anyhow. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I made so many changes so that you could read my reasoning in each edit in the edit summary. Actually, DMOZ links are explicitly endorsed in WP:EL. I think my edits are sufficiently explained by their edit summaries, though I would be glad to answer more specific questions. Mangostar (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving the Pictures Around[edit]

Someone needs to move the pictures around, because frankly, the article looks horrible the way it is now. (Blank spots, huge jumps between text, etc.) I tried to, but someone reverted my edit. So, I'm leaving it to someone else. kkarma 15:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Shrimping, frog hunting, clamming...?[edit]

By extension, the term fishing is applied to pursuing other aquatic animals such as different types of shellfish, squid, octopus, turtles, frogs, and some edible marine invertebrates. The term fishing is not usually applied to pursuing aquatic mammals such as whales, where the term "whaling" is more appropriate, or to commercial fish farming.

I think the above, 2nd ph of the article, claims that fishing includes all these other activities when they all have other names that are more commonly used. Perhaps should be changed to "The term fishing may be applied to pusuing other...Bob98133 (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I agree with you. --Geronimo20 (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

recreationaql fishing in danger[edit]

The biggest threats to the recreational fishing are: 1-regulation of magnuson stevens that is not science based nor is it flexible. 2-radical environmental organizations who want marine protected areas to ban fishing.It does nothing to propogate the species who are mostly migratory. 3-Apathy by fisherman not willing to join any organization,they just complain. 4-unfair quotas which are more liberal than what is allowable to catch & keep compared to the recreational fisherman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.187.179 (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Trolling, Trolling motors[edit]

... both need covered in this article. I added the term and an inline comment as follows: ...angling (including trolling<!-- as in trolling motors, angling technique used in boat fishing in both salt and fresh water angling, of slowly moving the boat, usually using a small motor designed for the purpose (usually with a local controller such as a foot pedal from the fishing point, not the helm.)

--->); For those of you lacking experience, that's pronounced like Trawling, not a fantasy monster or internet bad boy—despite the spelling, it's context that matters. // FrankB 04:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Needs balance in terminology[edit]

I'm adding a few words to the intro, using hunting as an example, to make the process of "catch" more clear. The article's body should include more direct language, as well. If anyone objects please discuss here rather than simply revert. PrBeacon (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Epipelagic, please don't revert edits by regular contributors. [1] Use this talkpage to discuss the issue rather than dismissing them as "unnecessary additions." PrBeacon (talk) 07:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I did not revert your edits as "vandalism", as you claimed. I reverted them as "unnecessary". You seem to be adding verbiage just for the sake of verbiage, presumably to impose yourself on the article rather than make a useful contribution. You have not contributed anything useful anywhere else in any fishing articles. Instead you come straight to the main fishing article and promptly mangle the lead sentence. As it stands, the opening sentence is simple, elegant, and adequate, and not improved by you swamping it with your riders that are fully covered elsewhere in the article. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
So much for being open-minded. The term "catch" is ambiguous, some readers are unfamiliar with fishing. And I didn't say you called my edits vandalism, I said (in my edit summary) that they are not vandalism. As a longtime contributor you should know better about reverting, but you seem to be exerting some territorial issues. And because you've now reverted me twice and only afterwards have come to the talkpage, yet refuse to discuss the additions and only give this a blanket dismissal, I'm going to re-revert and warn you for edit warring. I think we'll need to get a third-party in here. PrBeacon (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
You have replaced the lead sentence , "Fishing is the activity of catching fish", with "Fishing is the activity of catching fish for food, recreation, or trade."
Fishing is in fact the " activity of catching fish". It is not necessarily for food, recreation or trade, and does not have to have a purpose at all in order to be "fishing". It can also be tensely competitive rather than recreational, it can be for a trophy to stuff, it can be as a gift for someone, it can be for scientific research, it can be to stock an aquarium and so on ad nauseum. But if you are involved in the activity of catching fish, then you are "fishing". This had nothing whatever to do with the reason why you are fishing. So the purpose someone fishes should not be pushed onto the lead sentence. Your additions are not only inappropriate, they are also redundant. If you actually read the lead, you will see that these three purposes are already in the lead: the second paragraph refers to recreational fishing, and the last paragraph refers to fishing as an employment and producing fish for consumption.
You then add a second, unnecessary, sentence: "'The term fishing includes killing, trapping or capture." Taking these one at a time, "killing", if it occurs, is something that might happen after catching the fish. It's not an integral part of actual fishing. "Trapping" is a technique, already included, along with several other techniques, further on in the same paragraph. As for "capture", what do you think "Fishing is the activity of catching fish" means, if not that you capture ot catch fish. Capture is the same as catch. You are adding nothing but verbiage.
Since I have to point this obvious stuff out, it is clear that you didn't think about what you wrote, and you didn't bother to read what was already in the lead. Nor should you be templating the regulars like you did on my talk page, warning me in an inflammatory way for edit warring. It is, in fact, you who are edit warring. You have overwritten the long established lead to this article. I have revert your edits until such time as you can establish a consensus here that your changes have merit. If you can't do that, then please find an another area in Wikipedia to play out your combative drama. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
There you go in a dismissive and patronizing manner again. Nonetheless, I'll start with your last point: (you) reverting a fellow regular editor (me) is more combative than what I did in simply adding a few words to the page. You could have discussed my changes here on the talk page, or added/reworded them to clarify. Wiki pages are not set in stone. Please show me the policy or guideline that says not to edit "long established" lead, whatever that is.
And what you've explained is not obvious to the casual reader. As I said at the start of this talkpage section, I used the Hunting article as a guide. There it says "The pursuit, capture and release, or capture for food of fish is called fishing." This is a much better lead sentence than "Fishing is the activity of catching fish" -- which is way too simplistic and somewhat euphemistic. Speaking of which, I also find it more than odd that the word "killing" appears nowhere in this article. Although it may be understood in the context of fishing that the term "catch" often results in killing the fish, it should be clearly stated. PrBeacon (talk) 10:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, all sorts of things can happen to a fish after has been caught. Fish can and are unhooked from hooks, untangled from nets, tranquillised, ike jimed, bled, discarded, released, put in fish bins, scaled, skinned, eviscerated, filleted, rinsed, frozen, salted, dried, fried, sorted, spiced, packed, canned, smoked, processed into fish meal, auctioned... All sorts of matters like these are discussed in 1,200 accompanying articles for someone who is interested, and none of them belong in the lead paragraph of the fishing article. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

[outdent] That litany of fishing results is a collective red herring and does little to further this discussion. Please be more civil. Despite your own combative stance and objectionable demeanor, I'd like to move on to changes in body text -- what exactly is your objection to adding the fact that some fish die, i.e. are killed as a result of fishing? PrBeacon (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your ever courteous reply. I see that this thread in now featuring in the dramafest you are conducting across various noticeboards, such as here and here. You failed to inform me, as required, that you had opened an edit warring report on me. It seems you want the word "kill" to appear as much as possible in a number of articles. I have no objection to you adding, in an appropriate way to the text body, that fish are usually killed or die at some stage after they are caught. I think you underestimate the intelligence of readers, but it is clearly important to you. There is a big live fish trade, so perhaps you could explain that fish are usually dead or killed before they are eaten. Though I guess it's optional. Fish in cans are definitely dead. I would think most smoked and filleted fish are dead too. Fish in sushi are probably dead unless they are very small. Almost certainly, eating live fish would kill them, even the ones swallowed alive, though you would need a reliable source for that. Even aquarium fish die eventually. I hope this clarifies your confusion. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not confused. Nor would i try to hide the fact that i'm here to provide balance against humanocentristic euphemisms in wildlife articles. For the record, i fish and i eat fish so this isn't about some campaign that you like to imagine. You say i'm imposing myself yet you continue to blare & bluster about how much you know of the "established" text like its the fish gospel. So what if i havent made changes to other fishing articles. you'd probably revert those and dig in there, as well. I dont see your name anywhere else in this talkpage. And you didnt start until after your 2 reverts. Yea we both know about the edit-warring. (Edit: I did not fail to inform, I followed 3RR form, warned you on your talk page, which you deleted).
      And if you're going to investigate someone just because you disagree with them & can't control your temper, then at least be forthcoming when you link an admin thread which has been withdrawn, voluntarily. The other editor who replied to that, by the way, has shown his own bias as well. So don't get too comfortable with your high perch of judgment. Calling a legitimate dispute 'drama' is just another weak dismissal. The way you've behaved here is not in the spirit of this community project. PrBeacon (talk) 04:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
For the most part I really don't follow what you are talking about. What am I going to "investigate"? You show very little clarity for someone who is not confused, with all your unwarranted assumptions about what I imagine, feel, have done, would do, and so on. You say you informed me that you had reported me for edit warring. Where? The warning you put on my talk page says nothing about the report. Please "balance" things somewhere else. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah, if only you'd originally followed one of the better rules you'd have a leg to stand on. And I see you too are afflicted with The Last Word syndrome. Good luck with that. PrBeacon (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

whats the differentance between fishing and angling?[edit]

whats the differentance between fishing and angling? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie-Zhang (talkcontribs) 05:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The best place to ask questions like this is at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. Article talk pages are for the people who are writing the article. Anyway, angling is fishing with a hook ("angle"), or hooks. It can be contrasted with fishing without hooks, such as fishing with nets, traps or spears. You could look at the article on angling. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Fishing Picture[edit]

I posted a picture, and Epipelagic removed it. I put it back, as I thought he removed it because he thought it was vandalism, but it wasn't. He removed it again and told me to discuss its appropriateness here before I put it back. It is simply a picture of me holding two fish that I caught. It doesn't make the article's aesthetics any worse; the History section is made less wide to accommodate it, but there are no empty spaces created by it. If the other pictures of people fishing that are already on the article are appropriate, I don't see why mine isn't. --C0N5T4NT1N3 (talk) 0:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tyler. Wikipedia is not a good place for vanity photos. Your photo would be entirely acceptable on Facebook or Flickr. But if you look at how you have inserted your photo in the fishing article, which is the main article in the fishing project, you will see that you have inserted it in the history section. What has your photo got to do with the history of fishing? Because your picture takes up a lot of vertical space, it has pushed images below it further down the page, so they are no longer aligned with text that is relevant to them. Looking at the caption you entered, it says "A dashing young man shows off his catch". What has that got to do with fishing? It is about you, not about fishing. It is true that you appear to be holding a couple of fish. But it is not at all clear what fish they are. Nor is it clear how you caught them. The photo is not focused on the fish or how they were fished. It is focused on you.
You point out that there are "other pictures of people fishing that are already on the article". Well let's look at the picture of a fisherman surrounded by tackle in the section on fishing tackle. That picture is there, not to glorify and draw attention to the guy in the picture, but because it is a well composed picture where the fisherman is is surrounded by fishing tackle. It is there because it illustrates well the section on fishing tackle. What specifically is your picture illustrating about fishing? To see how silly vanity pictures can become, have look at this attempt to insert a vanity picture into the article on fisherman. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I think I understand what you're saying. And while I do not believe that my picture is entirely inappropriate, I think it might be better placed in a gallery of fishing photos as opposed to the top of the article, and I understand why it is not a necessary addition to the article. I will keep it off. C0N5T4NT1N3 (talk) 21:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead image[edit]

It is understandable, Omulazimoglu, given that you have just uploaded a photo that you took by yourself of people fishing, that you now want to promote your picture as a lead image on the main fishing article. However there are over 7,000 other images available on fishing at commons that other people have also taken. You need to need to establish what it about your photo that makes it so special. The image you are proposing appears to be of several recreational anglers fishing from a jetty. It is quite a nice picture, but it doesn't illustrate anything of particular interest. You might say the moon is nice, but it is nothing to do with fishing. On the other hand, the photo you want to replace shows an unusually elegant method of netting fish, with a pleasing style and colouring. In my opinion, it is a more suitable photo than the one you want to replace it with. Please stop edit warring and explain your reasoning here. You can reinstate your photo if you get a consensus from other editors that your photo is indeed the more appropriate photo. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you are right. MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 07:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject Fishes[edit]

Removing tag associating this article with Wikiproject Fishes. "WikiProject Fishes aims to help organise our rapidly growing collection of articles about fish taxa. Issues outside the scope of this WikiProject include fishkeeping (fish aquarium topics), fishing, fisheries, fish cuisine topics, fish farm topics, fish market topics, fish processing topics, fish product sales topics, fish products topics, and fish trap topics." [direct cut and paste from project main page]. This article does not fall within the scope of that wikiproject. Neil916 (Talk) 07:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

History of Fishing[edit]

Working on history of technology for another language wiki I don't see in the historical articles anything about the impact of fishery on development of permanent settlements. I understand that hunters-gatherers could only become really sedentary after moving to agriculture. But what about lakeside fishers who had all-year supply of fish? Would they not be the first ones to start permanent settlements? Who knows something?

Beside: The opening sentence of the article sounds a bit silly. I cannot believe that "Fishing is the activity of trying to catch fish." Although it is forbidden here on wikipedia I did original research some years ago by putting a hook into the water and trying to catch fish - without success. Unfortunately there were some people upstream who were actually fishing and pulling fish out of the water. I never tried again and was deeply embarassed and would never claim that I did fishing. I failed. --Kipala (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

If you have relevant reliably sourced material about long term settlements and fisheries, please feel free to add it. There is an article on the history of fishing which is the place to put stuff like that. I know many fishermen who would find it irritating, but not strange to say that they came back empty handed from a fishing trip. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Deep sea fishing evidence[edit]

Science is reporting evidence for deep sea fishing of tuna, shark, barracuda dating to 42,000 BCE. here is a news report, but a link to science would be best.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.135.200 (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)