Talk:Black marlin

I took this out since it doesn't really reference the subject of the article.

'381 world records have fallen to Fin-Nor reels, including Glassell's 1560-pound black marlin caught in 1953 while filming The Old Man and the Sea (the record still stands).'

Copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of the large-scale clean-up project of a massive copyright infringement on Wikipedia. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously.

For more information on this situation, which involved a single contributor liberally copying material from print and internet sources into several thousand articles, please see the two administrators' noticeboard discussions of the matter, here and here, as well as the the cleanup task force subpage. Thank you. --Geronimo20 (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hemingway quote
Since there seem to be a few misconceptions about WP:BRD here, I'd better get this started before edit-wars themselves into trouble.

The editor wishes to include a lengthy blockquote from Hemingway in the article, which makes it look like this. That's an unacceptable take-over of a short article by a peripherally relevant, large quote. At the risk of inciting further high dudgeon by slandering Nobel laureates, literary quotes in species articles are frills - stuff that can be added after the basics are covered and a well-developed article exists that covers taxonomy, ecology, and human use. Having the article look like a Hemingway excerpt with the relevant material forming a light fringe around it is not an acceptable state. Comments by other editors would be welcome. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , the process is clearly laid out at BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle - you made an addition, I reverted it, now we discuss it. That other people did not see fit to make that reversion earlier does not enter it. I have very little problem reporting you for edit-warring if you refuse to play by WP rules of editing. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Your use of the word "frill" with respect to the passage from a Nobel Laureate in Literature, which I believe adds a engaging dimension to this article (in a 116 words), is inappropriate. Please assume Good Faith.--Lord Such&#38;Such (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * well, I disagree that the quote is appropriate for such a short article. If you will, propose it on the talk page and we'll see what others think about it. BTW, you putting extra effort into taking offence at the word "frill" does strengthen my impression that you don't understand the issue of article balance; a quote from a joint travelogue by Einstein, Eisenhower, and Gandi would be a frill in this context - a late-stage optional extra that could be added after the basics are taken care of. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The Black marlin article - and the quote you find offensive - remained on the page for six months without being molested, enjoying over 200 visits to the site per day. It seems that you, not I, need to defend your persistent removal of the quote. --Lord Such&#38;Such (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

(Signature duplicated here before collapsing the following text.)

By the way, I noticed you just removed the following exchange from your talk page, a note from Proteus last March:

Humpback Whale

''I noticed you undid my addition of the reference to Star Trek IV as trivial - unfortunately that maybe your opinion and hence I have undone the edit. Star Trek is a major motion picture series which has a large fan base and for it to devote a large part of the movie to the potential extinction of this species is IMHO not trivial! Proteus (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

...sorry, I don't have the stamina to get into the inevitable edit war with another fanboy ramming their favourite work of fiction into articles. I'll leave it to someone else to undo.'' --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

--Lord Such&#38;Such (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * it's called "archiving", dipshit. If your intention is to become another 'fanboy' so annoying that I have to start ignoring you, you have another think coming. Stay off my talk page from now on and confine your petty attempts at sandbox fighting to the article talk page. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

As to profanity, e.g. "dipshit", refer to Wikipedia rules on Civility and "Wikiquette". You can be blocked from Wiki if you persist in using such terms. And if you do you employ such terms in future, have the courage to direct them towards Wiki Administrators. Grandmaster Editors and the like.--Lord Such&#38;Such (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Nice to see you have finally joined me here, even if it's just by copy-paste. Since the two of us are clearly not going to resolve this, I have put in a request for a third opinion. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * (I'm here from 3O). I disagree with any idea in the direction that the "addition" must be the "B" and the removal must be the "R". In other words, the "R" in "BRD" stands for "revert", not "removal". If the quote was in the article for 6 months, removed for two, then added back, I don't think it's clear cut that the addition is either the bold edit or the revert. Especially since there were many intervening edits in both "states".
 * Regarding the question of if the quote belongs in the article, I think it would ideally be greatly decreased in "prominence" so to speak. To my eyes, it is eye catching, glaring, and takes up a lot of space. I agree with the sentiment that the current layout of the article has the quote improperly dominating the page. Concretely: Does the background need to be yellow/orange?? Perhaps we could have a "Depictions in literature" section with a normal block quote such as Template:Quote instead of this current left-justify that is quite disruptive to my eyes while reading the article. Leijurv (talk) 20:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That would definitely be a step forward, although to my mind any "Depiction in literature" section is still premature for a species article that just about qualifies as start class at this point. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I can apprecitate Leijurv's concern as to the placement of the quote, but retaining the quote in another format. This is a compromise position, and worthy of a true Wikipedian.--Lord Such&#38;Such (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that the quote is far too prominent in this short article. Further, I don't see that the content of the quote adds anything to help the reader understand the topic of the article. The article already describes the fish, and nothing is added by Hemmingway's poetic (and inaccurate) exaggerations "high as a full-rigged ship", "sliced the ocean wide open", etc. CodeTalker (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Allow me to make these observations:


 * During the 6 months that the Hemingway quote stood unmolested, several Wikipedians edited the article, and obviously observed the placement and content of Box Quote under discussion. These editors include:


 * User:Aracauria who self-describes as “an ecologist specializing in macroecology, energetics, and vertebrates.”


 * User:Keith D who self-describes as a “Grandmaster Editor First Class”


 * User:dawnseeker2000, who has been a contributor to Wikipedia since 2007.


 * Why did these editors not simply delete this quote? Clearly, they did not view it as an unworthy addition to the article. I would surmise (until they provide their own remarks) that it contributed to the improvement of the article.


 * As to CodeTalker's assertion that Hemingway's literary devices to express the experience of observing a Black marlin as "inaccurate" hardly deserves a serious response.--Lord Such&#38;Such (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting notion... tote up all the people who could have done something, attribute hypothetical motivations to them, then build that into a phantom consensus. It would be entertaining to see that approach tried at AfD. - Do let's confine this to editors who actually voice a stated opinion on the issue, yes? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Add: apart from that, it's a good idea to ping previous contributors to get their actual opinion, as you have just done, and I should have remembered to. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just a note that I would not have even seen the quote in question as it was an AWB edit I made to the lead, so would have only been looking at the differences not the whole article. Keith D (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That said, what is your view, as a Grandmaster Editor,User:Keith D, as to Wiki Rules regarding the Hemingway quote in this article?--Lord Such&#38;Such (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe it's just WP:MOSQUOTE, and I suppose WP:QUOTE. I would look closely at the three "overuse" bullet points under WP:QUOTEFARM, I fear this usage may hit two or three of them. Also, regarding the formatting point, you are using Template:Quote box, and, if you click that link, you'll see This template can be used for block quotations (long quotes set off from the main text). However, this use is not advised in articles. The Manual of Style guidelines for block quotations recommend formatting block quotations using the template or the HTML element, for which that template provides a wrapper. (emphasis mine) Leijurv (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately,Grandmaster Editor,User:Keith D has not yet weighed in this issue, and yet what is a "long quote"? Here we have quote of 116 words, which directly addresses the characteristics of the Black marlin in sport fishing. This quote may encourage additional contributions on that subject.. I have requested comments from a Grandmaster Editor on this topic. What is User:Leijurv's claim that the 116 word quote overuses the usage "by two or three times." --Lord Such&#38;Such (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)--Lord Such&#38;Such
 * No, I don't intend to make any claim about the word count or how many times overused it is. Take another look at what I wrote. I think that this quote as it stands may go against two or three of the bullet points at WP:QUOTEFARM under "Overuse happens when". Concretely: the quote is not explained, it could be easily paraphrased ("Hemmingway described an encounter with a black marlin ... etc ... he judged its weight at a thousand pounds ..." or something), and it does dominate the article (and if it were moved to a "depictions in literature" section, it would dominate that too). Leijurv (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, the material from Hemingway's novel To Have and Have Not could be "paraphrased", but that would be to falsify the nature of the material that the author presents. It cannot be dragooned as a scientific report: it is a literary expression of the species under consideration which adds a key dimension to the article.--Lord Such&#38;Such (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Bravo, Coastside! This strikes me as a reasonable compromise that comports with Wiki precepts. Here is how it looks in Block quote in your more "proportionate" form:

--Lord Such&#38;Such (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

3O Response: As per WP:LONGQUOTE, quote boxes should be generally avoided. Aside from being overly prominent, they are more challenging in terms of formatting. With apologies, I had to change the "align" parameter in your use of quote box above so that my response would not end up word wrapping to the right of the quote box. Coastside (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Your argument that "quote boxes should be generally avoided" is self-serving in this dispute, and rather odd. If you go to Template:Quote box you will find that Mary Howitt's poem The Spider and the Fly (1829) is showcased as an appropriate block quote at 69 words. The Hemingway edit you proposed is 77 words. As to the "challenging" adjustment you made to the example I offered, this is the kind of edit that is routinely expected (and appreciated) from the editorial contributors at Wikipedia, and not that the quote is unwieldy.--Lord Such&#38;Such (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

3O Response: I was specifically referencing WP:LONGQUOTE which includes guidance that "Quote boxes should generally be avoided as they draw attention to the opinion of one source as though Wikipedia endorses it, which may violate the neutral point of view policy." In any case, I'm offering my opinion, and I agree with User:Leijurv that quote is better here than quote box Coastside (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thirded; if we end up using the quote, we don't want it in dominating billboard format. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This seems to be where we stand on the matter. First, Leijurv, has not defended her suggestion to "paraphrase" Hemingway's literary description. Recall that he is a fiction writer, not a Fisheries Biologist. Secondly, presenting the passage from the novel as an indented quote:

Novelist Ernest Hemingway, an avid offshore sport fisherman, made these observations on the black marlin in his 1937 To Have and Have Not:

""...I saw a splash like a depth bomb, and the sword, and eye, and open lower-jaw and huge purple-black head of a black marlin. The whole top fin was out of the water looking as high as a full-rigged ship, and the whole scythe tail was out.... The bill was as big as a baseball bat and slanted up...He was solid purple-black and he had an eye as big as a soup bowl. He was huge.""

--Lord Such&#38;Such (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

3O Response: Why don't you at least make the change to use quote instead of quote box? As it is, the article is almost unreadable. Also, your intro is too long. This article isn't about literature or Hemingway. Just say "Ernest Hemingway in To Have and Have Not described a black marlin:"Coastside (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delighted by your amusing quotes from Shakespeare and Lincoln (now deleted, erroneously, as troll-like). I believe that Schiller's stinging observation (also deleted) is more to the point in this exchange (see history).


 * Back to business. I have so far offered two compromise formats for the Hemingway quote, posted explicitly on this talk page. No other editor involved in this dispute has displayed any compromise format. Complaints about an "unreadable" article have been cast, and quibbling over my own compromise offers, but no counter offer for the quote. An editor operating under the precepts of Good Faith would have, at this stage in the dispute, offered a format for the quote that they believe satisfied their position on the matter.


 * A request and caveat: let's keep the discussion on the merits of this quote box to this page, not on the participants Talk pages. One the litigants has used vulgarities to disparage participants on her personal Talk page. We are not amused.--Lord Such&#38;Such (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with the compromise quote format suggested above, and am permanently removing myself from this discussion before I start characterizing "one of the litigants" as, say, a self-satisfied pompous twit - apparently it's fine if we couch "stinging observations" this way? Yes? Awesome. Unwatching. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Glad you thought my (now deleted) quotes were delightful. I was trying to inject some levity, and nice to know you appreciated it. I think this beaten horse is dead and suggest you go head and make changes as you like (or not) up to you. As for me, I was trying to be helpful (as a 3O) and I hope I was without ruffling feathers too much. Not unwatching... Coastside (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Top speed and pectoral fins
The top speed by that study is severely understated. Years of research have I spent on black marlin and have constructed special turbine tags to measure accurately the speed of the water passing the marlin, essentially giving me the marlins speed. I have found most specimens to be able to go over 47km/h (21/24 marlin I tagged) and some able to go over 60km/h during deep dives.

I'm the smaller, younger specimens, almost full retraction of the pectoral fins along the body of the marlin has been witnessed. In larger specimens, using video from cameras on teasers both from my research and readily available videos on YouTube, the pectoral fins of large, adult black marlin can be retracted largely for reduced drag. Guyjacobsenmarine (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * , your findings are not questioned, at least not by me. But this is an encyclopedia that relies on and requires all content be supported by WP:RELIABLE sources. Your research would have to be published in established journals to be included, and be sourced to those publications, otherwise it's original research, WP:OR. Thank you, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I can publish data from the tags should you wish Guyjacobsenmarine (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * , I know you're an expert, but it's still WP:OR, which the encyclopedia doesn't accept. If your findings are published in an independent WP:RELIABLE source, that's a different matter. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)