Talk:Red herring/Archive 1

Archive 1

January 2008

Maybe I´ve missunderstood something but the example from "Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door", doesn't sound like a red herring, but then again I´ve never played Paper Mario.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.102.40.202 (talk) 19:03, January 14, 2008

The Scooby-Doo paragraph in its current form makes no sense. I don't know enough about the topic to fix it however: Cpeel (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In the animated series A Pup Named Scooby-Doo, every episode Freddy accuses the wrong person, the same person every time, a Red Herring (the character's actual name). Commonly, in the series and threatens Freddy every time he is accused and gives an alibi, thus giving some reason to suspect him despite the fact that the clues don't target him as the fugitive. Only twice is Freddy right about Red, once in a flashback on the Scooby-Doo Detective Agency's first case about a spook in the preschool playground when the cast was only in diapers and again in the only episode Freddy doesn't verbally accuse Red due to a bet/dare that he wouldn't accuse Red when Red's aunt's motorcycle is stolen but Red only stole it to have it repaired as a birthday present.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Plot device

A red herring is not a plot device, it's a plot element. A plot device is something introduced to a story solely for advancing the plot - a red herring doesn't advance the plot, it actually distracts from the plot. I think plot element or narrative element is the word we are looking for. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know - if the plot is considered to be (to grab a quote from the plot article) "all the events in a story particularly rendered towards the achievement of some particular artistic or emotional effect", then a red herring is positive part of that, rather than a negative distraction. It's an intentional part of the story. --McGeddon (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Prison Break

A red herring was used in Prison Break when it showed Sara's head in a box but it was later revealed she had not been a victim of decapitation and was alive and well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weatherbed (talk • contribs) 12:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Paul Cramer

A prominent example of the "red herring" in soap operas is the murder of Paul Cramer on One Life To Live. Paul was a primary character in the infamous "baby switch" storyline on One Life To Live and All My Children. When he was murdered, the killer was revealed to be Daniel Colson, who was being blackmailed by Paul because he was gay. Prior to the reveal, the two characters had no interaction with each other at all.

Where is the distracting element in this? The murder itself? The not-known-until-the-end killer or blackmail? ALL the rest of the cast, since Paul seems to have been disliked? This needs to be clarified or the example removed. -- From (talk) 12:58, 5 June 2008 (CET)

I've now removed this, for exactly that reason. If there's an intentional distraction, it has not been explained. --McGeddon (talk) 10:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Clue

I can't believe nobody has added anything about the movie Clue to this page -- the phrase "Communism was just a red herring" is used in each of the three possible endings. Fantastic bit! Evixir (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Origin

The true origin of 'red herring' has recently been uncovered: it was coined by William Cobbett in 1807. There was never a real practice of dragging herrings on hunts; he was just making a political point. So we need to change this, when the 18 Oct 08 World Wide Words newsletter is up on the site, or when the Editor updates the entry on 'red herring'[1].

Also change 'Herring'.

202.64.168.196 (talk) 08:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

If the technique was never a real practice, it certainly is documented as far back as 1686. See N. COX Gentl. Recreat. v. (ed. 3) 65, as cited in the Oxford English Dictionary's entry for "red herring." Cobbett may have been the earliest to use it in the metaphorical and political sense, one would think that the had to get the idea from somewhere, otherwise the readers would not have a touchstone to understand the reference. Oswald Glinkmeyer (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the article by Cox (quite possible written by Langbaine, G. and included in the volume without attribution [see Ross, R.S. (2008, Octover). Comments on Etymology) which the OED cites is actually an article on horsemanship. Cox recommended using a carcass (or, if a kipper if you did not have a carcass on hand) to create a path for hounds to follow. However, the purpose was not to train the hounds but to train the horses to follow the hounds (Quinion, 2008). Unfortunately, according to this, the citation in the OED is likely spurious. The article currently documents both the ostensibly false etymology (ie. hounds following scent); as well, Cobbett's metaphorical red herring refers to an apocryphal childhood story involving baiting hounds with herrings. I believe both facts have been included in the article. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mineminemine (talk • contribs) 21:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, again referring to the OED, and my current reading material (Nashe's 1599 Lenten Stuffe), it's quite clear that the view of red herrings as being used to 'draw on hounds to a scent', and by extension the metaphorical usage, appeared at least as early as the 16th c. Here's the full quote: "Next, to draw on hounds to a scent, to a red herring skin there is nothing comparable. The round or cob of it dried and beaten to powder is ipse ille against the stone, and of the whole body of itself, the finest ladies beyond seas frame their kickshaws." The entire book is about red herrings, and it's very hard to see it (outside of this quote, I mean) as having a purely literal meaning. Cobbett, and 1807, is clearly a poor attribution. Aron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.185.68 (talk) 13:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Also am on shared IP, now registered, account is here: Aron7913

Thanks Aron. You know you can add stuff like this to the article yourself. That's a great find :) --Epipelagic (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This is an interesting find, but we need a secondary source that confirms otherwise it is original research. I will contact etymologist Michael Quinion who has been maintaining a running "origins" article. Also, I am looking at Nash's Lenten Stuff on Google Books and am unable to find the quote above. Maybe it's the edition or the search not working or something, do you have more information on what chapter or page the quote on hounds is found? Green Cardamom (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I found it, go to here, scroll down to Lenten Stuff, click on the Nina Green PDF version, on page 40. Still trying to parse what he means exactly though as it's not totally clear he is talking about using RH's for hunting or escaping criminals. Green Cardamom (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I left a note for Michael Quinion, I hope he takes a look and updates his article so we can incorporate this great find into Wikipedia in a better way. Green Cardamom (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Please, again, watch your intemperate and inaccurate use of language Cardamom. In your edit summary, you accuse me of original research, which is forbidden. Please study the relevant policy, so you know what original research means. To quote from the policy: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source." The entry I made was a simple statement of fact; it merely stated that the quote existed, and where it came from. There is not a trace of original research in that. On the other hand, the addition you made is a classic example of original research. You stated that "the significance of this to the idiom has not been established", which is an attempt by you to interpret the relevance of the primary source in a wider context. Yet you failed to reference your claim to a secondary source. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You need to stop these personal assaults as a way of conducting yourself on Wikipedia. The OR problem is clear: someone found something in a primary source and concluded it had something to do with the idiom and added it to this article. If it has nothing to do with the idiom, it should not be in the article. We don't know if it has anything to do with an idiom, we are guessing it might. Green Cardamom (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Please read wp:or with more care. Merely adding the fact that a primary source exists is not original research. It may be an irrelevant source, but it is not original research. If the primary source has nothing to do with the idiom, then it is an irrelevant source, and could be removed on those grounds. But it not original research. However, interpreting what the primary source means in the context of the article is original research unless it is backed with a secondary source. What I added was not original research, but what you added was. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding the primary source to the article implicitly acknowledges it has something to do with the idiom, otherwise it would not be added to the article! The assumption by adding it to the article is that there is a connection to the idiom. That assumption is OR. I added the clarification so that we don't have that problem, as a sort of compromise work around, but if you want to remove that clarification, we would probably need to delete the entire thing until there is some secondary source that draws a connection between the idiom and the primary source. Green Cardamom (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is some general information on the role of the 'red herring' in the text itself, which might be hard to decipher without contextual information. Also, the actual quote is very ambiguous -- the criminal/hound debate is not even hinted at, I don't think -- but it's enough, I think, to prove that the 1807 date is far too late. Essentially, at this stage in his life (he was dead by 1601; Lenten Stuffe is his last work) Nashe had fled London because of his involvement in the writing of a lost (ie very successfully suppressed) play, The Isle of Dogs. He stayed in Yarmouth, and this pamphlet/proto-novel was nominally about the history of this town, and it's main export, the red (smoked) herring. But it's a confusing, mercurial, eclectic text, full of strange perspectives and flights of fancy. He makes the red herring into this object or persona worthy of worship, for comical and satirical purposes, and in a sense (although now we stray into literary territory), it comes to represent the pamphlet itself, and to some extent all of Nashe's writings: productive digression; the creation of a 'scent' that is not important in its own right but leads to a useful outcome (ie in the training of dogs?). So while this isn't very clear, I think it might be inferred that the red herring had some sort of purpose in hunting, or supposedly so. Aron7913 (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This is and interesting original analysis of the text. Green Cardamom (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'm gonna quote--and probably illegally (?)--a section from the OED etymology which clears this up a little bit. Sense 1a and b refers to herring that is red because of having been smoked; 1c (slang for) a soldier; 2 is figurative for information which is intentionally misleading; 3 is 'finance', and in the Compounds (General attrib. (in senses 1 and 2)) you have Nashe's 1599 Lenten Stuffe and some other references.

"In sense 1c so called on account of the red colour of their uniforms.

In sense 2 with reference to the former practice of laying trails for hounds to follow, ultimately to exercise horses which followed the hounds; red herring could be used for this purpose (among other things; compare quot. 1599 at Compounds and 1697 at sense 1b; compare also drag n. 6b). Such a trail was artificial and therefore false as opposed to the trail of real game in a hunt. In the 19th cent., the artificial trail was wrongly perceived to have been a deliberate attempt to distract the hounds (compare e.g. quots. 1836 and 1877 at sense 2), but there is no evidence for such a practice, and it is likely that this interpretation originated in a politically motivated fictional tale by W. Cobbett (in the same source as quot. 1807 at sense 2). See further Comments on Etymol. (2000 ) 30 i. 20–4.

In sense 3 with reference to the red colour of the advisory notice historically printed on such a prospectus."

So I suppose the distinction has to do with the false trail and it's purpose. The OED takes 'red herring' in Lenten Stuffe to mean solely a training technique for hounds. If I have time tomorrow I'll try to think of a cohesive way to incorporate this into the article; can we cite the OED (which is behind a paywall)? Aron7913 (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

OED is already cited in the article (note #1). Remember this article is about the idiom and not all uses of Red Herring. I'd suggest this information about Stuffee may confuse the history since it has nothing to with Cobbett and the origin of the idiom, it seems like an aside. If we must keep it, I reworded the last paragraph. If we want to expand on this in an article about hunting practices, it would be the place. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I received the following email from Michael Quinion about the Stuffee reference:

Many thanks for passing on that antedating of the usage. It confirms that the the original sense of red herring was as a training aid for dogs. It may indeed be that some memory of this persisted in Cobbett's day.

This can't be used as a source for the article, but maybe Michael will update his article and it can then be incorporated into this article. Green Cardamom (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Mother Goose

I noticed that you removed the Mother Goose quotation from this article:

A man in the wilderness asked this of me
How many strawberries grow in the sea?
I answered him as I thought good
As many red herrings as swim in the wood.

Why? It illustrates the popular view of the idea of training scent hounds by dragging a red herring through the woods, from an extremely important source on the evolution of the English language. And it is self-referential, illustrating the idiomatic use of a Red Herring. How is this unrelated trivia? Aymatth2 (talk) 01:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Aymatth2, I'm sorry to call it trivia if you thought it was not, I did not see the meaning you point out - now I see what your saying I agree it is not trivia. But I disagree with you still :) It is not clear that this passage is related to "the idea of training scent hounds" for a number of reasons. First, the passage itself could just mean what it says: strawberries in the ocean are just as crazy as fish in the woods - both are out of their element. This simple explanation makes perfect sense without having to make a connection to the "red herring" idiom (unless you have a source that says otherwise). Second, as the Wikipedia article explains, there is no evidence that using herring for training hounds was ever a real practice used by huntsmen. It was probably a fanciful creation by William Cobbett in the early 19th century, as explained here. Assuming this is true, Mother Goose pre-dates Cobbett, making it impossible for the two to be connected. I think all these things add up to a tenuous link between the fairy tale and the idiom, unless there is evidence to the contrary. Green Cardamom (talk) 02:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Mother Goose is like Aesop. There is no one author, and there are different rhymes in different collections. Some are very old and others more recent. This one is at least 150 years old, perhaps much older. If it is recent, perhaps it refers to Cobbett's story. I doubt it. It does seem to illustrate the idiom by giving a reply that introduces a completely irrelevant concept. Conceivably, the rhyme is the source of the idiom, although I doubt that too. The article has to avoid synthesis, coming to an original conclusion, but has to avoid pushing one point of view about the origin of the idiom, which remains obscure. I would prefer to include the rhyme, but with a very neutral introduction. "The Mother Goose rhyme ... may illustrate the idiom". Aymatth2 (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

..but, we don't have any sources for Mother Goose and I believe the connection is very weak and original synthesis. Just because a poem uses the word "red herring" doesn't mean it's being used in the idiomatic sense - in particular we should not use it as an "illustration of the idiom" when the idiom is not clearly being used! Green Cardamom (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that if the article quoted Mother Goose, that would be a red herring? Aymatth2 (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

hehe .. yes funny. Like a recursive algorithm. Beautifully illustrative. Unfortunately beyond the scope due to WP:SELFREF. Green Cardamom (talk) 02:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

To leap in here uninvited, I think it's pretty darn clear that "As many red herrings as swim in the wood" is a reference to the idea of the fish being dragged through the woods, so my vote would go to Aymatth2 on this one, for what it is worth (not much, I know :} ) Randal Oulton (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Red herring (idiom) → Red herring — Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Every other use on the dab page is derived from the idiom and/or is relatively obscure. The actual "red herring" fish is (properly) at Kipper and is not commonly (ever?) referred to as "red herring". Most if not all links to red herring in article space intend to go the article about the idiom, not the dab page or any other use of the term. Born2cycle (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Red herring → Red herring (disambiguation)

• Support. Clearly the primary topic. Powers ^T 23:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support, there is no actual fish called a "red herring". Some kipper dishes are called red herring, but it is an antiquated usage. Almost always the term is used in its idiomatic sense. Green Cardamom (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Clear primary meaning. Andrewa (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support. As noted by others, this is the clear primary meaning. PC78 (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support. This is the primary meaning for the term. Jafeluv (talk) 10:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

A red herring

Red Herring

Herring

Reddish brined cold smoked herring (Scottish kippers), for sale at Harrods department store.

Red herrings are herring that have been kippered by heavy smoking till they turn reddish-brown. Their pungent smell can be used to lay a false trail.

I removed the picture of the red herring. First off, there is no fish species as a red herring, and that picture looks like someone just Photoshopped a herring red. Second the article is about the idiom, not the kipper, so it's confusing, a red herring. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like there is now discussion of the reddish brined kipper in the article, so I added a real picture of one, not photoshopped. Hope that's all right. --GRuban (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually I kind of agree with the anons removal. The article is about the idiom so a picture of the literal fish seems out of place, but it would probably be appropriate in kipper under Scottish herring. Red herring is an old name for kipper not used very often these days. It's a type of kipper as explained in the article to help define the idiom's origin, but the article is about the idiom not the fish. Green Cardamom (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It illustrates the second paragraph in the article, which discusses the specific red kipper. Why is no picture better? When I read that paragraph, I went looking to see exactly what a reddish brined kipper looks like. Presumably I am not unique in wanting to see such a thing. I understand it isn't a picture of the idiom itself, but then it hardly could be. If you like, I can move it down to just before the second paragraph. --GRuban (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

If this article was longer, and this was not the only picture, I could see the point, but when its the sole picture it's a bit overpowering. In fact it could be seen to some readers as a joke edit (vandalism) and thus I suspect will be contentious. I understand your point though. We do have an article on kipper with pictures. There's another problem with the picture: it's not labeled red herring, it's labeled "Scottish kipper", as it says in the fish mongers sign it's been "cold smoked" but the article says red herring is soaked in salt brine -- I'm actually not sure where these two processes cross, so there is some unknown here, we're not sure if "Scottish kipper" means the same thing as "red herring". It's an assumption that a Scottish kipper means the same as red herring, a good assumption, but not evidently factual. Green Cardamom (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

As the article states, " there is no such fish species as a "red herring"" - so clearly we're not implying that Scottish kipper means the same thing. Rather, again, as the article states, "rather it refers to a particularly strong kipper, meaning a fish—typically a herring but not always—that has been strongly cured in brine and/or heavily smoked. This process makes the fish particularly pungent smelling and, with a strong enough brine, turns its flesh reddish." Unfortunately I can't find a good way to illustrate that the fish is particularly pungent smelling, but I think the picture is a good illustration of the flesh turning reddish. It is clearly labeled as a herring. Therefore, I think this is a good picture to illustrate that part of the article. --GRuban (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Kippers are just smoked herrings. Whether they are Scottish or not is just a red herring. I like the image. There seems to be two ways the term "red herring" is used. Firstly, a red herring can be defined literally as a type of smoked kipper. Michael Quinion, who seems a reliable source, defines red herrings as "a type of kipper that have been much more heavily smoked, for up to 10 days, until they have been part-cooked and have gone a reddish-brown colour. They also have a strong smell."[2] It is entirely appropriate to illustrate this meaning with the image Ruban found.

The other way the term "red herring" is used is as a kind of oblique metaphor for a "false trail". It is not the red herring itself that is of interest here, but the fact that it has a pungent smell. The smell is more directly relevant to the false trail, but we can't currently provide a virtual simulation of how red kippers smell on Wikipedia. Still, I think, again, it is good to have the image of the red herring, but the caption should be written something like I have done here, to indicate that it is the smell that is relevant. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Well here's the thing. This article is not about red herring the fish. This article is about the idiom. Notice the article name change section above, this article used to be called red herring (idiom), we changed it to red herring not because we want an article about the kipper, but because the idiomatic sense is the primary meaning of the term and thus gets the main name space. Red herring kipper are covered in the kipper article, or red herring (kipper) if we must. But this article is not about the kipper and putting the picture here is confusing, as at least two people have pointed out (myself and the anon who deleted). BTW in terms of the caption "Their pungent smell can be used to lay a false trail," as the article (hopefully) makes clear, that practice was apocryphal, a made up story. There was never a practice of using red herring in hunting, the picture re-enforces something the article is trying to debunk. Also, that picture clearly says "Scottish kipper", and clearly does not say "red herring". Whatever you think it is or should be, it does not say "red herring", it says something else entirely - not a great way to illustrate. Green Cardamom (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

@Green Cardamom: I don't understand your reasoning here. If you think the idiom "red herring" has nothing to do with the fish, then you should remove all mention of the fish from the article. But then you wouldn't have an article. The fact is, the fish (or at least its smell) is central to the idiom. You also claim the statement "Their pungent smell can be used to lay a false trail" implies it was used that way historically in hunting. It does no such thing. It just states that it "can be used to lay a false trail" (bye the way, I would be surprised if it wasn't used in practice, since it would probably work very well). I am also at a loss about the continued worries you have about where the kipper in the image came from. It has to come from somewhere. Would you have the same problem if it was an Irish kipper, or is it just Scottish kippers that are the problem? The description for the image explicitly says it is a "red herring". What more could you want? Finally, you can't really claim a passing-by anon who deleted the image, gave no reason for the deletion, and made no attempt to discuss the matter here, puts your argument on the same footing as that of the established editors here who do argue for the image. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is simple, the sign in the picture says "Scottish kipper". If you want to say the Scottish kipper shown in that picture is red herring you'd need to source it, otherwise it's original research. For example, does the fish in that picture have a strong smell as Red Herring supposedly does (a notable feature for this article)? Not all red smoked fish is pungent, most smoked fish I have had is not because people don't go for pungent fish these days (controlled by how it was cured, how fresh the fish was). If you have a picture of a fishmonger selling actual Red Herring, labeled as such, you'd have a stronger case. As for people using herring for hunting, that's been looked into and there is no evidence. Myth Busters even tried it on a 2010 episode and it didn't work. It's a myth, a fabricated story by one man in the early 19th century as part of a polemical tract to make a point about Napoleon, as described in the article and sources. Anyway, it's not too important as it can be fixed by just saying "allegedly used for" or something, it's not central to the main point above about original research. Green Cardamom (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Phew... I'm not sure you read my replies. "Scottish kipper" is just a way marketers brand their product, like "New Zealand butter" from where I came from. You are very good at producing red herrings yourself. Fresh red herrings probably doesn't smell too bad, but the origin of the term dates back to a time when refrigerators didn't exist, and salted fish was smoked as a preservative. People probably had red herrings lying around for long periods, and they presumably became very pungent. The image is what the article is lacking (though it would be better if it smelled). Anyway, I have restored it with a caption that I hope meets your concerns. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

A red herring an intentional deception, which in the parlance of Wikipedia is assumption of bad faith. However fun it may be to use that idiom in this discussion, I would appreciate your assumption of good faith. My points are valid and you recognized by changing the wording of the picture. I've modified the caption to add something about the idiom which I think will address my concern about it being too much about the fish in an article about the idiom. Also rather than call it a red herring up front, explained why it could be called a red herring with an "ie." which I think addresses the concern about the sign which says "Scottish kipper". We'll see how it goes with other readers, this is a fairly high traffic article so any disagreement should show up. Green Cardamom (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Cardamom, it is good to think twice before throwing around accusations of bad faith. I appreciate it is the hallowed tradition on Wikipedia, encouraged on the drama boards, to accuse an editor you disagree with of bad faith, incivility and making personal attacks. But all too often, it is the accusation itself that is made in bad faith. Where are the sources for your contention that the use of the idiom "red herring" necessarily implies "intentional deception" (a strong term indeed). The idiom is generally used in the sense of following or generating false trails. Those are deceptive trails, in the sense that they are not furthering the argument, but it does not follow that they must be "intentionally" deceptive. You have returned, again and again in this thread, to the idea that the image can't be about red herrings if they are Scottish ones. You have also returned repeatedly to the idea that you can't say their smell can be used to lay false trails because there is no historical evidence that was a common practice. My contention was, and is, that those trails of thought are irrelevant to the whether the use of the image is appropriate (and are therefore red herrings). In no way whatever did I make any assumption that you were being "intentionally" deceptive. That was your own assumption. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Your chosen definition of red herring, in the sense of it being unintentional, is accurate according to the OED, which says it can be either intentional or unintentional. But which sense you meant wasn't clear, indeed my understanding of red herring is the same one defined in our article, which is based on The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2009), it says a red herring is "something intended to divert". That is, red herrings are intentional diversions. So this appears to be a source of confusion. Since red herring is British origin, it should probably follow the OED, I'll fix the article. Since our disagreement over bad faith seems to stem from a misunderstanding over a difference in definitions UK vs US, I will retract my accusation of bad faith, I'd expect you would also reconsider your above assumptions in light of this new information, and recognize an improvement in the article came out of the discussion. Re: the picture, with the new caption it's acceptable, until better illustrations or different points of view weigh in. Green Cardamom (talk) 02:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the article has been improved on several counts, and the discussion was productive :) --Epipelagic (talk) 02:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --GRuban (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Seven years later that stinkin' fish is finally out of the head section! :) -- GreenC 16:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Picture of fish

Someone left the following Feedback:

I wanted information on the Red Herring fallacy, not the dumb fish

I believe the giant red picture of raw fish is confusing readers who don't take the time to read and understand the article is not about fish at all, despite the huge picture of fish making them think this is an article about fish. Green Cardamom (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Readers who are that confused will still be confused if the picture is removed. It would be good though if the picture could be replaced by a drawing of someone setting a false trail by dragging a red herring across the ground. By the way, what is the basis for referring to this story as "apocryphal", that is of doubtful truth? That needs reliable sources. It seems highly plausible to me, and it may be that the way the article throws scorn on the idea is a more potent source of confusion. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Michael Quinion, it's cited. There is also a cite to MythBusters in which they actually tried it and found it didn't work (though that is not the reason it is listed as apocryphal, in support of Quinion). In other words, there is not reliable source to show that anyone anywhere has ever successfully done it. The whole point of the article is that the idea makes so much sense, it is so plausible sounding, that is why the idiom caught on. That you would think it is plausible is exactly the point. Green Cardamom (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This article isn't about the fallacy

How is this article about the idiom rather than the fallacy? Red Herring is both a fallacy and an idiom and both should be covered here, correct? Note that Ignoratio elenchi says that the red herring is a related concept, it doesn't say that the red herring fallacy is a different name for the same concept. Ryan Vesey 21:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If we went into the logical fallacy aspect it would repeat the content of Ignoratio elenchi. Red herring is a colloquial or slang term for Ignoratio elenchi, not a related concept, but the same thing in certain context. Red herring is also a literary technique, and other things (it's not always an intentional fallacy). There is also the issue of Categories and separating out. Green Cardamom (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources, such as the logic book I added to article, disagree that the two are exactly the same. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome expand it with the related literary technique. I'm not familiar with it. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Even without seeing this, I came to the same conclusion and boldly edited the article to that effect. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Changes

I read A Concise Introduction to Logic. They give a precise definition of how to determine a red herring vs a straw man vs a ignoratio elenchi. They say red herring is a type of ignoratio elenchi and a fallacy should not be labeled ignoratio elenchi unless you are unable to determine a more precise meaning (ie. red herring or straw man). The idea being, it's not always possible to tell the difference between a red herring or a ignoratio elenchi, since red herring is a sub-type of ignoratio elenchi. It would interesting to know when this sub-type of logical fallacy first emerged or was recognized. I might suggest that for a long time red herring was just a slang term for ignoratio elenchi. Is A Concise Introduction to Logic the first/only source to make this distinction between red herring and ignoratio elenchi?

This article was originally just about the idiom. While it contains etymological elements, it's not a proper etymology, it's an encyclopedia article about an idiom. I've restored the correct ordering of paragraphs as was in place for years, presented chronologically (literal sense -> William Cobbett's figurative meaning -> debunk by Quinion).

Concerned the "Examples" section will become a honey pot for every in popular culture use. Do we need an entire section of examples? Remove for now until we settle the definition of red herring (intentional or both).

The Myth Busters episode is interesting but it's probably not reliable for this purpose, it's not a scientific study. The only reason I included it was relegated as a footnote as a point of interest, not to suggest that there was a conclusion reached by a single "experiment" made for TV. It's not a RS for this type of thing.

The lead says the etymology has been controversial. The history is pretty well established and there is no known controversy that I am aware of. While there is some seeming contradiction with Nashe's Lenten Stuffe, there could be a logical explanation (such as Nashe making stuff up), in any case nobody has commented on this contradiction so there is no known controversy. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

At a minimum we need to go with WP:COMMONNAME here and have an article about the fallacy exist at Red herring. Information on the idiom can exist somewhere else if you think they're separate. Ryan Vesey 04:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This article for most of the life of Wikipedia was called Red herring (idiom). Someone renamed it at some point based on WP:COMMONNAME. It's a really slippery subject because it depends on your POV which is more important - logical fallacies or language. But I'm still not convinced on the notabilty of red herring as being a precise logical fallacy that is recognized beyond just a slang term for ignoratio elenchi (per above), but am willing to be convinced. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you try to read other logic textbooks I've added to the Ignoratio elenchi page? Like Christopher W. Tindale (2007). Fallacies and Argument Appraisal. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-84208-2. pp. 28-33 (covering "red herring") and pp. 34-36 (covering "Irrelevant Conclusion" / "ignoratio elenchi")? Tijfo098 (talk) 07:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

That's helpful. I think what is needed is an explanation of how red herring is different from ignoratio elenchi and strawman as they are closely related and sometimes difficult to tell apart. Rather than an examples section it should be a section devoted to explaining the logic fallacy. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

And I see nothing wrong with covering the etymology of the expression and the fallacy it (figuratively) denotes on the same page. These are obviously closely related topics. For an analogous example, the page on straw man manages to discuss both the fallacy and the etymology/origin of the phrase (used to denote it) without any trouble. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Look I have no problem covering it on the same page either (though I will point out the literary expression came first, the fallacy borrowed the literary expression, the fallacy could be called anything but someone at some time decided to borrow the term). I think calling it "Etymology" isn't correct. It's history, literary history and etymology combined. It's just simply "history". Etymology is a specialized term that is unnecessary here (and frankly many places on Wikipedia. This isn't a dictionary.) Also you basically undid everything I had wrote above including: 1) the lead section "controversy" text, 2) the myth busters, 3) the examples section - without any discussion. You made an initial Bold Edit, I reverted some of it (kept most of it), and opened a discussion, see WP:BRD. However, you then subsequently reverted me almost entirely and didn't follow up the discussion, other than to say "I see nothing wrong with it". This is a problem. I'm not going to revert you at this point, even though I disagree. If you could please give me the courtesy of responding to my above concerns on points 1-3 so as to avoid going to DR. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

misleading caption

The kipper pictured has was not smoked and brined until red but rather dyed red with coloring as you can see from the ingredient listing in the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.43.42.180 (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Can of worms

The link to Can of worms in the "See also" section points to a disambiguation page with a lot of choices. Which one should it point to? 79.114.37.206 (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It should point to Wiktionary since there is no Wikipedia article for the idiom, in which case it probably doesn't belong in See Also. -- GreenC 02:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Convict origin

Removed " An alternate etymology points to escaping convicts who used the pungent fish to throw off hounds in pursuit." Per this article, this is a false etymology. While it may be good to include false etymologies and note them as such, this source is unreliable. From the author's preface in the 4th edition: "Perhaps I have erred in devoting too much space to fascinating but speculative stories about word origins, but I don’t think so, for the wildest of theories often turn out to be correct ones. In any case, while no good tale here is omitted merely because it isn’t 100 percent true, I’ve tried to at the very least include as many plausible theories about the origins of these words as possible." 75.76.68.167 (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that only etymologies with reasonable rationale must be listed. I myself can invent a handful of such. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Facts on File is usually considered a reliable source and Robert Hendrickson has written many word origin books over the years. While it would make the article more tidy to remove the weaker theories, the problem is what if Hendrickson is right? Our article does not assert that one etymology is absolutely right, only that one is the most likely. There are prevailing opinions .. until new evidence emerges. It's a case of multiple POVs. I'll reword as it's really a variation of the story about dogs. -- GreenC 21:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Myth Buster

In response to the alleged MythBusters so-called "myth being classified as "Busted,"" a good hound is trained to ignore red herrings, or what is commonly called a slick trail that leads to nothing, but the dog is treeing as if it has caught the game up an empty tree. So in training, you could drag a raccoon or bear pelt to the end of the line, and in the middle redirect with a red hearing or deer or other non game animal hyde, and scold the hound for changing scent. So one good dog does not bust the myth. There is another term commonly used in judicial opinions, "that hound hunts." So MythBuster is busted for laying a red herring themselves, an inaccurate claim.-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homesculptor (talk • contribs) 01:11, 25 July 2015

I concur. In practice, both English hound dogs and modern working police and military dogs are taught to reject false positives. The NCIS description of the old world practice describes the type of false positive rejection training done today, as well. Clepsydrae (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I concur in the sense that they did not bust a historical claim. We are not sure how well the dogs were trained in the long gone past or how well all dogs are/were trained. Unfortunately we cannot add our own critique of MBusters into wikipedia. Any publications? - üser:Altenmann >t 19:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Origin of the phrase

The article dates the phrase to the year 1807 and to William Cobbett. Though, Online Etymology Dictionary [3] dates the figurative use to a much earlier date, and lists the following:

Though I have not the honour of being one of those sagacious country gentlemen, who have so long vociferated for the American war, who have so long run on the red-herring scent of American taxation before they found out there was no game on foot; (etc.) [Parliamentary speech dated March 20, 1782, reprinted in "Beauties of the British Senate," London, 1786]

(Perhaps William Cobbett popularized rather than coined the phrase.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. In previous research I never came across the 1782 quote (including at Online Etymology Dictionary) so a new finding. The curious thing is the quote is online here (first column middle) in a book edited by William Cobbett in 1814. Cobbett amassed historical Parliament debates which eventually became became Hansard. A strange coincidence. There is no doubt Cobbett was responsible for popularizing the figurative sense. The question then becomes is the 1782 instance a legitimate record, or something put into the record after the fact (Parliament records are not completely verbatim like today rather were edited). Or possibly this is where Cobbett picked up the figurative sense. Or we can say the figurative sense has unknown origins, dating from at least 1782, but was popularized by Cobbett. Tough call, really needs an etymologist to weigh in (for reliable sourcing purposes). -- GreenC 20:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The origin of the phrase most certainly IS known, and the best description I've read or heard thus far comes from the fictional, though reality-based and very well-researched TV show, NCIS: "You know the derivation? Fox and hounds. Well, the only practical way to cure a herring is by smoking and salting. Yes, it turns the fish a crimson red and gives it a very distinctive smell. In the early 15th century, they used to train their hounds to hunt foxes by dragging a red herring along the ground on a piece of string to leave a trail of scent for the dogs to follow. Then, later on, they would drag a red herring across the scent trail of a real fox to test the dog's ability to ignore a false scent, or false clue. Hence, the term 'red herring' became to mean a false clue designed to fool one's opponent." - Ducky, NCIS: Naval Criminal Investigation Service. (February 15, 2005). "Witness," Season 2, Episode 14. Belisarius Productions, CBS Paramount Network Television, Paramount Television (in association with) (as Paramount A Viacom Company)Clepsydrae (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes.. dog training is already in the article. NCIS is a fictional TV show, not a reliable source nor saying anything not already in the article. -- GreenC 06:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't be snarky, and please stop being ignorant. Although NCIS is a fictional show, it's real-world research and accuracy of information is well-known. By "well-known" I refer to "common knowledge," as in widely-accepted fact, an acceptable condition within Wikipedia's rules not requiring its own substantiation. If you're not aware of this, that's your problem, but you should not delete knowledge useful for your other readers. As for the "Mythbusters" reference, they used a dog that was never trained using red herring, hence their erroneous conclusion. Whether hunting dogs or military/law enforce drug dogs, they must be trained to reject false positives, as hounds trained in the red herring method were. The Mythbusters dog was not. In light of the above, I reverted your unwarranted deletion of my edit. Clepsydrae (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: I have read the 2008 article by Michael Quinion and his references to William Cobbett's Weekly Political Register, particularly the 14 February 1807 issue (http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/herring.htm). Sorry, but this does not jibe with many references to its much earlier use, as far back as 1420. Indeed, even Quinion makes the same reference: "The first reference to them in English is from around 1420, although the technique is older than that. Within a century, they had been immortalised in the expression neither fish, nor flesh, nor good red herring (later, fowl was added or replaced flesh), meaning something that was nondescript or neither one thing nor another." Merriam-Webster also places the earliest reference in the "15th century," some four hundred years before Quinion's 1807 reference that appears to change the meaning of a term used in reference to a centuries-old practice. If anything, Green Cardamom, Quinion's far later reference appears to be a red herring itself! The explanation written into the NCIS script is the most eloquently-worded explanation of a centuries-old expression, used in both Great Expectations by Charles Dickens, as well as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s novel The Final Problem. As such, the excellently-worded NCIS explanation stands. Clepsydrae (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

TV shows are inadmissible sources for any scientific claims, per wikipedia rules. Period. Unless the infor is about the show itself. If you claim they did good research, surely you can find the sources they used, if the sources were other than hearsay. - üser:Altenmann >t 18:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The TV show is NOT the reference for the origin of the story, period. Please stop this wrong conclusion of yours and Green Cardamon and LOOK at the other references. The other references are the substantiation, not the TV show. The explanation given on NCIS is merely the best wording of the origin to date, and accurately reflects the purpose of the red herring in training hunting dogs to reject false positives, a practice which continues to this day in the training of modern police and military working dogs. Well-references background, amplifying, and illuminating is PRECISELY why Wikipedia was created and has grown to such great heights today. Reverted! Clepsydrae (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• It is Original Research, specifically WP:SYN. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." -- GreenC 19:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
• If you say so, you don't need the NCIS show here at all. However... police don training does not mention any herrings. Answers.com not about herrings either. Literarydevices.com is a website of unknown authority and even unknown authorsip. I cannot verify the date you claim from Merriam-Webster, because the webpage you footnoted says nothing of the kind. In summary, your claim that NCIS has the best wording is not substantiated. - üser:Altenmann >t 19:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about any sources, but it almost seems as though this whole thing is recursive - that is it seems the source of the term is itself a red herring (?) Brettpeirce (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Typos in subtitle

Please fix. Wesko (talk) 22:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

If I understand what you're referring to, that's called a "short description", not a "subtitle", and it's hosted on Wikidata. I've emended it there. Deor (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Fishy lead image

I'm not sure a picture of a fish meets MOS:LEADIMAGE's requirement that the reader gets immediate "visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page". This article is about the idiom and narrative device, and is not about the kipper (which is linked in disambiguation). Side by side these are two articles with fishy names which open with pictures of kippers, and the reader has no visual confirmation of which is which without reading the text.

User:Johnbod thought it "extremely silly" when I tried moving the image to the etymology section. This is what MOS:LEADIMAGE is advising, though, isn't it? --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I did. The relevance is confirmed in the lead, and caption. Many of our readers will not be familiar with kippers, so the image is useful. Johnbod (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

MOS:LEADIMAGE is about the image in isolation and how it's "perhaps the first thing to catch the reader's eye" and that we should "avoid lead images that readers would not expect to see there". That many readers will be unfamiliar with kippers and/or the etymology of the phrase "red herring" is all the more reason not to use a picture of a kipper as the "representative image" here: it does not reassure them that yes, this is the article about the idiom, not an article about some other red fish. A representative image of the red herring literary device would be a detective examining a clue, not a fish in a shop window. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you really think such an image could convey the meaning easily? At worst the fish represent a Red herring in themselves. Johnbod (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'd think that someone seeing a drawing of a detective would be reassured that the "red herring" article they'd arrived at was about the misleading-clue literary device. File:A Study in Scarlet Friston 01.jpg might be a good one to use here, which shows Sherlock Holmes peering through his magnifying glass at a false clue left by the murderer. --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'd find it confusing myself, but if you want, add it above the kippers, which we still need, because herrings are not naturally red, and, as I say, many readers won't be familiar with ones that are. Johnbod (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Lord Belbury - an image of literal red herring (made with food coloring) is off-putting in the lead-off about a non-literal topic. Arguably it doesn't belong in the article at all because we have an article on edible red herring (kipper), should anyone not know what it looks like, in the top hat. If we have to go to RFC there are three options (no image, image in the body, image in the lead). I'm pretty sure the middle ground compromise position would prevail as most subjective RFCs usually do. Johnbod, can you compromise on the middle ground? -- GreenC 19:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Law categories

What's the deal with the criminal law category? Is this about the "often used in legal studies and exam problems to mislead and distract students" line mentioned in the article, or is there more to it? --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

If so that is not sufficient to include categories. The IP user needs to explain what they are doing. -- GreenC 14:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)