Talk:Salmon

dubious idealism in History

This sentence seems wildly idealistic: "The Pacific Northwest was once sprawled with native inhabitants who practiced eco management, to ensure little degradation was caused by their actions to salmon habitats." Similarly dubious: "... people would not overfish, and only took what they needed." In fact the opposite is more likely to be true, we are talking about Homo sapiens with slaves and warfare as in the world over. Why should we believe Pacific Coast natives treated salmon differently than, say, plains natives driving buffalo over a cliff? Specifically, this ignores evidence of riverine and estuarine fishing weirs capable of destroying a run of salmon. Native fishing weirs were encountered on the Atlantic, Pacific, and Hudson Bay coasts in the 1700s. Remnants of pre-contact weirs are known on the Pacific Coast. I can only pass as anecdotal that tribes upstream of Fraser River weirs operated by enemy tribes would release logs to destroy the downstream weirs so that some salmon could pass to upstream fisheries. Perhaps this wishful thinking in which First Nations are perfect resource managers needs to be toned down. --Scott.akenhead (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the entire History section is light-years away from having a neutral point of view. It absolutely seems to idealize the natives as some sort of unearthly ecological angels. 98.175.69.178 (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Salmon and Salmo pages "excessive"

There are 2 pages: Salmon and Salmo in English-version of Wiki. Both trying to give some overview of certain Salmonidae fish arts, but is it really needed to have those 2 pages separately? 213.95.148.172 (talk) 11:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Becquart

Is there a species or variety of salmon called "becquart"? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 14:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Not everyone uses the metric system!

The table should provide measurements in inches as well as centimeters. 2600:1017:B801:1396:0:58:BCE:8F01 (talk) 03:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I added conversions. –CWenger (^ • @) 03:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! 2600:1017:B801:1396:0:58:BCE:8F01 (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2022

I request that a source be placed after the sentence "As animists, the indigenous people relied not only for salmon for food, but spiritual guidance. in the article "salmon". The source I am suggesting is "‘Rock-art’, ‘Animism’ and Two-way Thinking: Towards a Complementary Epistemology in the Understanding of Material Culture and ‘Rock-art’ of Hunting and Gathering People" by Martin Porr and Hannah Rachel Bell. Included in this article is a definition of animism which states that "understanding of their much more inclusive attitude towards the whole environment based on principles of ‘sharing’ and ‘giving’ that include humans, animals, plants and other (spiritual) agents." (Poor et al., 2011, p. 162). The link to this article: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10816-011-9105-4.pdf: Natashasing987 (talk) 05:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Sentence in article is about the Nisqually people, in northwestern North America. Linked source is about the Ngarinyin, in western Australia. It also does not mention salmon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3mi1y (talk • contribs) 02:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

"Salmon and Trout" listed at Redirects for discussion

File:Information.svg An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Salmon and Trout and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 20#Salmon and Trout until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

"Sake no dengaku" listed at Redirects for discussion

File:Information.svg An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Sake no dengaku and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 20#Sake no dengaku until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi protected edit request

In the etymology, please remove the term samoun there is no source backing this up. 2600:100C:A211:73E1:400B:E979:EC26:62CB (talk) 02:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the Template:Tlx template. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 03:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: BIOL 412 HONORS

— Assignment last updated by Gunnar Stark (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Why is it important to note that "Salmon" is not a scientific name?

As you an see from recent edit history, @Epipelagic feels very strongly that we need to document the fact that "Salmon" is a common name, not a scientific name. I don't understand why that's important. We don't do this for other animals. In general, we avoid explaining the obvious, and the difference between a common name (plain English) and a scientific name (modern Latin) is about as obvious as it gets. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I understand you believe you're detecting strong emotions and self importance, assigning them a direction, and consider your view "as obvious as it gets". I struggled to respond, but since you persist in edit warring, I'll reply. You claim "the difference between a common name (plain English) and a scientific name (modern Latin) is about as obvious as it gets". However, scientific names (binomial names) are only grammatically Latin-based, with terms from languages like Ancient Greek. Here, the common name "salmon" derives from Latin, which you'd have seen if you'd read past the lead sentence.

You call this an article on "another animal". It's not—it's about an informal group of animals, as opposed to a scientific group. This distinction matters. Informal groups have common names rooted in colloquial language, not scientific definitions. Thus, these names and groupings evolve with common language, shaped by factors like species availability, marketing, and culinary trends.

For instance, which fish fall into groups like salmon, trout, cod, herring, sprat, or mackerel shifts due to changes in fishing, marketing, or consumer preferences. To answer, "What's the difference between a salmon and a trout?", you need some clarity on how the usage of common names originate and evolve—rules distinct from those for scientific names. These differences are significant, and misunderstanding them can lead to overconfident, hasty, drive-by edits. What seems "obvious" to an uninformed editor risks errors in articles like these. – Epipelagic (talk) 07:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)