Talk:Fish as food

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Fish (food))
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated C-class, Top-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
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 
WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing (Rated C-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Fishes (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Animal rights (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

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)

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)

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

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 15:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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)

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)
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)
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)
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 (talkcontribs) 01:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
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)