Talk:Eating live seafood

A Scandinavian myself, I am surprised to read that tapeworms and live fish consumption should be common here; I have never heard about any such thing and certainly doubt the reliancy of the source. /Jacob Bohlin, Stockholm

Primarily Asia

The eating of fresh, and often live, oysters is international. However otherwise the eating of live seafood is a purely Asian practice, surely?Royalcourtier (talk) 06:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.224.73.225 (talk) 04:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC) 

Surely not. Why would it be restricted to Asia? There has to be other people doing this in Africa, South America, and Oceania. Just because the west European colonizers eliminated the practice in Europe and North America does not mean only Asians do it. --Yel D'ohan (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I have read the book "Animal Liberation" by Peter Singer and he never said it was ok to eat live seafood

I have read the book "Animal Liberation" by Peter Singer. I actually own the book as well. Someone keeps reposting false information on this page and it needs to stop. Saying that someone is false when it is is a valid point. I was on this user's page and it appears like they have an interest in the seafood industry. This is why they pretend that I don't have a valid point even though I do. You can't keep posting that Peter Singer said something in his book when he did not say it. That is against Wikipedia rules and you will not get away with it and your bullying of me will not work.

Thank you for bringing your concerns to the proper talk page. However you are clearly confused. The passage you keep deleting does not use the term "live seafood" in connection with Singer. Check the year your book "Animal Liberation" was published. If it was published after 1975 then that explains some of your confusion. There are over 10,000 articles on the web that refer to what Singer said in his original 1975 edition of "Animal Liberation", and how he changed his mind in later editions.

Your insightful analysis of my character and what I am about is of course correct. I am a vile bully who controls much of the seafood industry. I am also the sadistic fascist and lazy liar you suggested elsewhere. I make enormous fortunes cruelly torturing and slaughtering vulnerable, innocent, and cute sea animals. But I don't know what to do anymore with the billions of dollars that keeps flooding in. It just won't stop. It's not fair. I'm tired of all this money. So it's not really correct to suggest I have a conflict of interest here. The truth is I no longer care whether eating oyster brings me more money. So we might as well have the truth... which is what the article already has... except you keep removing it. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, if what you say is true and Peter Singer really does say that in the book then tell me what on which page does he contend that it is ethical to eat live seafood and I will pick up my copy of the book and read that page and if he in facts does say that on the page then I will stop taking down the information. On the other hand if you cannot furnish me with this info or if he does not say what you claim he does on the page given then it means you are lying because if you were telling the truth you could furnish me with a page number where he says that. I obviously cannot furnish you with a page number where he does not say that because in the entire book he does not...but if he does like you claim you should be able to furnish me with a single page number. So let's have the page number and get this over with. If you can't provide one it means you are lying and I will fight tooth and nail to get lies corrected multiple times a day if I have to.

I emailed the following to Peter Singer

If you google "eating live seafood" then this article from wikipedia pops up and in the third paragraph of the article it claims that in your book "Animal Liberation" that you claim that it is ethical to get live seafood. By live seafood they mean eating seafood that is moving around while you eat him or her. I read your book and know that you didn't say this because I loved your book and it was one of my favorites after reading it and I read throughly and if you would of read that it is ethical to eat live seafood then I would of hated your book. Wikipedia is seen by millions and every vegan that reads that false entry and believes it is going to dislike you and not buy your material. So, this person who posts this is probably costing you millions of dollars not to mention damaging your reputation and life's work. I go there EVERYDAY and delete the false info but the person who wants it up also goes everyday and puts it back up. If I were you I would go there and tell him that if he doesn't leave it down that you will sue him for libel. Let me know what you think of this. -Hanz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.224.73.225 (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay. If Singer replies he will probably tell you to stop fussing. Please then do the right thing and reinstate the text you inappropriately deleted. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

OMG! YOU WERE ACTUALLY RIGHT!

I emailed Peter Singer and he replied with the following: Thanks for the information. "seafood" is far too general, but I have written that I don't think bivalves are likely to be conscious,so I don't object to eating live oysters. So this means he actually does condone eating live seafood. He is wrong because oysters do feel pain but that is not the point here...the point was that he actually said that. I am very disappointed in him and know that he didn't say that in the book "Animal Liberation" but he said that he has said that before. I will stop erasing your info...it is still technically false since he never says that in "Animal Liberation" but since he did say it in another work or statement it is not worth correcting the tiny error of the wrong publication. If you care about truth you would find out where he really says that instead of saying "Animal Liberation" but I don't really care much about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2E04:9E10:990:9B0A:13A0:CF08 (talk) 04:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging what he said --Epipelagic (talk) 05:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Table or sections?

Is this article better as a branching table grouped by country, or just regular sections and paragraphs, as the Eating live animals article does? I arranged it as the latter yesterday but got reverted because this was not "consistent with the other articles on seafood" - which other articles format similar information in this way? The content here seems like illustrated descriptive paragraphs, which the MOS suggests be formatted as prose. --McGeddon (talk) 11:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The reference you gave to MOS says:

Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a table may not

and

Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain.

You should understand that "descriptive paragraphs", as you call them, are what prose is. So the type of table we are dealing with here is entirely compliant with the MOS. The point of tables of this type is that they keep the illustrations and videos together where they belong with the descriptive prose, whereas your "rearrangement" scatters these elements in a disorganised way across the article. The example you gave, Eating live animals, is of a less developed article that does not provide images and videos for most of its examples.

You ask "which other articles format similar information in this way?". Most of the more developed articles on seafood do. Some examples are Shrimp as food, Herring as food, Salmon as food, Cod as food, Eel as food, Fish soup, Fried fish, Fermented fish, Fish head, Fish paste and List of raw fish dishes. Many of the other more developed articles on dishes in general also use the same format. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I mention prose as the alternative to tables, as the MOS does. Those other food articles seem more like one-liners ("A traditional cod soup from Ecuador"), where this one has chunkier paragraphs of prose discussing criticism and toxins, to the point where it looks like we've left the oyster text out of the table because it's too detailed. Seems like it'd be more readable as a standard Wikipedia article when there are only seven dishes being written about. (Might also make sense to split them up into fish/crustaceans/other rather than the countries they're served live in?) --McGeddon (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Epipelagic: Any thoughts on that, or shall I get a WP:THIRDOPINION? --McGeddon (talk) 08:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

It would be better to seek an interaction ban. I'm sick of you following me around and messing up articles you never contribute to. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'll get a third opinion. (I reached this article last month after somebody was edit-warring on Meat about animals having to be dead to count, I was trying to improve it by reformatting it.) --McGeddon (talk) 09:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Mess it up any way you want. I've abandoned this article as well. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Came here from 3O. As I read MOS, both formats are fine and acceptable. Table contains plenty of prose, so that section of MOS isn't terribly relevant - that section is more about preferring to explain numbers (e.g. data or observations) in prose rather than dumping a huge table that doesn't explain. This table does explain, and contains plenty of prose. In my opinion, the table is easier to skim than the sections are, but the sections have the advantage of generating a table of contents with quick links to sections. I agree with Epipelagic that the table format seems more consistent with the related articles they linked. Does McGeddon have a list of similar articles that use section headings? On the issue of grouping by type- I think that would not be good here - I think geographic groupings best reflect the culture of eating, and taxonomic groupings would be a bit of distraction. That being said, I do think a separate article about food by taxonomy would be very interesting and potentially useful, but that would be separate from this. I think there is plenty of room for further text in the live oyster section - perhaps some text could be copied from Oyster#As_food.

When judging between two acceptable variations of an article, my sense is to prefer consistency and and prior form - to change to a new form requires good reasoning that something is actually non-negligibly improved. So far, I'm only seeing evidence that the sections are allowed, not that they are significantly better. So my 3O is to leave the current tabular format until such time as the article gains enough sources and info that the table becomes cumbersome. At that time, sections would be a true improvement. My opinion is that I would start to see sections as a true improvement if we had say >7 countries/zones and >12 dishes.

(Another (unsolicited) 3O is that it seems Epipelagic turned this a bit personal and WP:BITEY. I have no idea what the interaction history is so please just play nice and WP:AGF) SemanticMantis (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. On reflection, all of these dishes have their own articles, so it wouldn't hurt to pare the descriptions down and let editors click through, as per the other food articles linked above, and maybe add a general section on ethics. I'll put some of the oyster lede paragraph into the table, and clean up the current mishmash of having videos as a floating box inside a cell, rather than their own column.

(Interaction history is just a two similar image-based disagreements on Talk:Herring that went stale, one ending with the same bad-faith "fine, this is your article now, mess it up".) --McGeddon (talk) 09:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@McGeddon: Cool. It looks like you've been making it better. I just changed "typically" to "often" under live oysters. I was just on the Gulf coast of USA recently, and there were indeed many live oysters being eaten, but also much more that were fried! I also noticed that live oysters now are not correctly appearing under "widespread", but rather look like they are grouped with "Korea" - would change it myself but I don't have time to wade through the table syntax (which is exactly one of the things that MOS warns about when using tables - editing becomes more difficult for many of us!) So, if you could fix that, I'd appreciate it. As for the 3O, I'm happy I could help, still not too sure on the normal practice. I left the notice on the 3O page, not presuming that my single 3O would help anything. If you no longer want 3O here, can you also remove the request from 3O? Cheers, SemanticMantis (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, the 3O was a useful extra perspective, and more than enough.

I was just taking the "typically" sentence from the lede, there. But the oysters are definitely showing up in the "Widespread" section for me, in my browser, even when I click the column headings to reorder them. Viewing the page on my phone I can only see "Drunken shrimp is a popular dish" and the rest of the table is truncated, so maybe there's some broken markup in there somewhere. (Other pages such as Cod as food seem to do the same, actually; will report that somewhere when I've got a bit more time to check it out.) --McGeddon (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eating live seafood. 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/20110817230524/http://hk.lady.nextmedia.com/articles/art_main.cfm?sec_id=3840163&subsec_id=6748448&art_id=11221716&showdate=20080612&av=NO to http://hk.lady.nextmedia.com/articles/art_main.cfm?sec_id=3840163&subsec_id=6748448&art_id=11221716&showdate=20080612&av=NO

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 11:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Removed a video cited in the article

The wikipedians and the people commenting on Youtube have an exotic romance or curiosity. Cited video "Live Sushi" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMIK6ZgMXwk ) may not taken in Japan, probalby Korea or an Asian (i.e., East Asian) restaurant in a other country. "Live Sushi" is just a name used popular Japanese word "sushi". There is no additional basis/evidence that the image/vision is Japanese culture. Unfortunately, they have not critic eyes, and cited the video "Live Sushi" as a reference for Japanese culture. Korean script in Hangul/Chosongul (오져처? 오져처? meaningless word like "lorem ipsum"?) is written on the tableware. Many people who do not understand Japanese language and Korean language are not interested in the difference between Japan and Korea. There is ambiguity, but this is important. cf., racism, exoticism - 211.131.37.92 (talk) 11:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Where?

The article states this occurs in "some countries in Asia, Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, Africa, and North and South America." That's Asia, Eastern and Northern Europe, Africa, and the Americas? So everywhere except southwestern Europe, Australia and various island nations? Why not just say "countries all around the world"? pburka (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

inconsistency in pages

In the section for "Yin Yang fish", the short description states that the dish originated in Taiwan. In the linked article, it is stated that the dish originates in Sichuan. These are not the same place. 164.166.223.29 (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)