Talk:Fermented fish

I don't buy it. I just saw yet another pbs show where fermented fish was presented in a cultural light and i dont beleive anyone has ever eaten that crap without dying shortly afterward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.33.149 (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Merging stinkheads with fermented fish
I agree that the stinkhead article should be place in with teh fermented fish article- there's just not enough information in the stinkhead article, mostly because there's not much available. Even after living in a Yup'ik village and seeing people eat them (I never could!) I was unable to find any good printed sources about stinkheads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcbpolish (talk • contribs) 18:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Wcbpolish makes a good point. Not much literature about the subject of stinkheads. A weakness of Wikipedia is that it dismisses any original informal intellectual conversation that could be the impetus for genuine progress. I'm tired of wiki-dweebs misinterpreting the spirit of the rules for Wikipedia. I take it as a cautionary tale about rule making, rule supporting, and rule enforcement. Wikipedia stifles creativity by handing over the authority to interpret rules to just anyone. Knowmoore (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fermented fish. 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/20060807175105/http://www.phppo.cdc.gov:80/phtn/botulism/alaska/alaska.asp to http://www.phppo.cdc.gov/phtn/botulism/alaska/alaska.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071006213621/http://www.wangensten.no/historie.html to http://www.wangensten.no/historie.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Preparations section
This is virtually impossible to read, view or understand on mobile. should be changed, edited into one or more sections without a table. BiliousBob (talk) 12:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Unbalanced Risk Section
Hi, I see you reverted my addition of the Unbalanced banner. My fault for not mentioning it in the edit. I still think it is a warranted addition since it reads as though the only example in the entire world for the risk associated with fermented fish lies with the Alaskan natives. While I think the information in that section is useful and correct, it would benefit from examples from other food cultures to make it "balanced". I believe I added that in a form within the template, but it didn't show up when looking at the template on the page; templates can be tricky things.

If there is a more appropriate banner to address the issue I see with that section, please advise. Cheers, Estheim (talk) 03:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * No, there's not a more appropriate banner, and you certainly have a valid point. The trouble with tagging articles is that usually tags don't change anything. They don't inspire other people to fix the problem. You can tag this article, and come back in 10 years time and find the tag still there. Eager capable Wikipedians are not patiently sitting on the sidelines waiting for other people to tag articles so they can rush in and fix the problem. There's too much other stuff to get on with, problems everywhere, and most editors like to choose their own areas to work on. What I do, if I notice an imbalance that bothers me, is to just fix it myself, as in wp:sofixit. Regards — Epipelagic (talk) 05:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm very sorry, but I see a SIGNIFICANT problem on the page, and I don't immediately feel like slogging through Google Scholar to read journal articles about food poisoning. That is the entire point of adding a banner. Perhaps I will mull this topic over for a few days and revisit it when I feel like researching it, and perhaps I won't. I don't like having WP:SOFIXIT used to insinuate that I somehow demand others to do my dirty work, ESPECIALLY considering the areas I edit in and the types of edits I make.


 * I slog through the unsourced listings and do other people's dirty work almost 'exclusively' on this website. There's no one patting me on the back, nor is there a vibrant, helpful community ready and willing to answer my every concern and question related to content. You can't even bother to ask me what the removal was for, but you're happy to tell me I'm the lazy one? I don't think so. I'm reverting your action because your response is not only insulting to my contributions here, but also because it was a sound addition. Estheim (talk) 05:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. Since you're so upset, I do apologise. Wikipedia content builders are required to be saints at all times and in all ways. — Epipelagic (talk) 06:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)