Talk:Sablefish

Heavy metal levels

I deleted the statement that sablefish flesh is low (indeed "very" low) in toxic metals. As a bottom feeder high on the food chain it is actually not surprising that sablefish meat is on average relatively high in mercury. Indeed, a New York Times article says, "Many popular varieties of seafood, including black bass, striped bass, bluefish, halibut, lobster, monkfish, black cod (obiter: a common market term for sablefish), skate and snapper, are so high in mercury that the department suggests no more than one serving a week of any of them for those women and children."[1] Although a blanket generalization fails to capture the fact that mercury levels in sablefish vary widely between samples, it remains misleading to reassure readers that sablefish tends to be particularly safe to consume. I suspect the statement to that effect originated in some organization eager to promote Alaskan fisheries. Myron (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)HI ITS HI[reply]

"...and is commercially important to Japan"

I did not edit this to append "and Korea" because I'm not sure what the threshold for commercial importance is. I can only say from anecdotal evidence that it is very popular in Korea, although considered expensive and reserved for special occasions.--Baroque&arrow (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Baroque&Arrow[reply]

Is this the same fish sold as "smoked sable" here in New York City? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.210.86 (talk) 05:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --Macrakis (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, or not, what a "serving" is.

A "serving" is a very vague unit of measure, and merits clarification. Even though it could be left to the reader to figure out what a "serving" of fish meant, the article is improved by not having to send the reader to search for it. This is about the fish as food and a unit of measure, and not health advise. The use of the vague word "serving" is known to be an issue whenever it appears, unless the reader is versed in the topic of servings. As a reader, I'd appreciate the clarification of what a serving is here in particular, thus making a better article. 73.119.19.79 (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a "serving" is a vague unit. But the details of how much fish the FDA recommends for children versus adults is a detail which only matters if we are trying to be a source of nutritional advice, which Wikipedia explicitly does not do. If it's not health advice, what is the purpose of detailing how big a "serving" is for a child vs. an adult? In fact, it seems to me that the FDA's recommended amount per week is not encyclopedic at all. --Macrakis (talk) 02:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article describes facts about Sablefish. The fact that the fish has high levels of mercury is a relevant, notable and important fact that must be listed. The fact that the US FDA issued a recommendation regarding the dose or portion size linked to health issues regarding this fish is also important, relevant and notable.

The goal of a Wikipedia article is to create a comprehensive and neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge about a topic. The facts in question here are definitely encyclopedic. Each article on Wikipedia must be able to stand alone as a self-contained unit. If there are words or expressions that many readers may not know (such a the size of a serving), and the material permits a more understandable explanation, then editors are strongly recommended to rewrite it.

The unit of measure "serving" is defined by the US FDA. It happens to be that "serving" is different depending on age. To state the distinction of a serving for children and adults, it is to clarify the definition of the confusing unit of measure "serving", as it applies to this article. For the above reasons, according to Wikipedia guidelines, it is recommended to clarify what a "serving" means within the article. Stating the fact that the US FDA issued recommendations regarding this fish, should not be construed as the article being a source of nutritional advice, even though, and in spite that, there may be some implicit advice traceable to the US FDA.

I appreciate user Macrakis efforts to improve the article. However, he eliminated notable information that belongs to the article. I request that it be added back. Thank you 73.119.19.79 (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The FDA is giving advice about sablefish consumption. That's fine; that's their role. WP, on the other hand, is an encyclopedia. Mentioning that it has a high level of mercury is encyclopedic; giving advice about how much sablefish people should or shouldn't consume is not. In my judgement, we shouldn't even mention the FDA's advice about "at most one serving a week", but if we do, it is just to give a notion of orders of magnitude. Detailed amounts are out of place here. --Macrakis (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have strong opinions about the inclusion of serving size information in the article, but I think that the current text does not accurately characterize what the FDA is recommending. The linked FDA page does not say "no more than one serving per week" it says "Eat 2 to 3 servings of fish a week from the 'Best Choice' list OR 1 serving from the 'Good Choice' list", where Sablefish is on the Good Choice list. My interpretation of the FDA's advice is that 1 serving per week is better than 0 servings per week, which the "no more than" phrasing is not consistent with. Ultimately, I think that the article needs to be expanded in many other areas--the "As food" section is only be one aspect of the story of this fascinating species. --IGTaylor (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is NOT giving advice about how much sablefish people should or shouldn't consume. The article is reporting the important, relevant and notable fact that the US FDA issued a recommendation regarding the dose or portion size linked to health issues concerning sablefish. As editors, if we want to do a good job reporting this notable fact (what the US FDA stated about this fish), we should report it in the article, and we better make the words we use (such as "servings") unambiguous or less equivocal. This is why, following wikipedia guidelines, we should have no qualms about stating what a serving means in this context. (I'm not calling to create a subsection.) For the article to "be able to stand alone as a self-contained unit" and to be "comprehensive", we should say what the statement of the US FDA is, clearly. It won't diminish the quality of the article, on the contrary. I dare say that most readers would appreciate the clarification of what a serving means here, thus making a better article. 73.119.19.79 (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More information does not necessarily make for a better article. Moreover, as IGTaylor points out, the tone of the FDA recommendation, namely that sablefish is a "Good Choice", is lost. Anyway, realistically, sablefish is expensive enough that not that few people are going to eat large amounts of it. --Macrakis (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your thoughtful insights and opinions. Since the points I made have not been refuted with counter-facts, or with necessary reasons not to follow the Wikipedia guidelines I based my claims on, then I'll add the minor clarifying information to the article. Thank you for your help. 73.119.19.79 (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re-adding material that is still under discussion is WP:Edit warring. Please don't do it. At this point, I think we need to ask for some uninvolved editors to look in on this. --Macrakis (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understood the dispute was resolved in a way that reflects Wikipedia's goals, policies and guidelines, as I explained this conclusion and my action above. I agree with user Macrakis that we may need to ask for some uninvolved editors to look in on this at this point, since he does not agree with my conclusion. If user Macrakis can suggest a compromise edit that addresses my concerns, that would be very welcomed. Also, following WP:EDITCONSENSUS, we can reach an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution. Thank you. 73.119.19.79 (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps User:TeaDrinker could take as he's an administrator with expertise in both marine ecology and human health. --IGTaylor (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As IGTaylor pointed out above, the FDA page cited as a source does not say "at most one serving a week" (for pregnant women etc.); in fact, it recommends increasing average consumption to one serving a week, and considers sablefish to be a "Good Choice". So any revised wording should take that into account. I still can't see any reason for the detailed discussion of how big a serving is. That veers into WP:NOTMANUAL and WP:IINFO: "...an article should not read like a "how-to" style owner's manual, cookbook, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box." --Macrakis (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: since the time of this discussion, the section has been expanded and improved. -IGTaylor (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Management areas in the Northeast Pacific

Thank you User:XXzoonamiXX for trying to clarify things, but your repeated edits to the "Fisheries" section have changed the meaning of the sentence about management areas making it incorrect. I though that the use of "contiguous United States" in the sentence

In the Northeast Pacific, sablefish fisheries are managed separately in Alaska, the Canadian province of British Columbia, and the west coast of the contiguous United States (Washington, Oregon, and California).

made it clear that Alaska and the other western states have separate management for Sablefish. The references associated with that sentence also make this clear. I've added "three areas:" to the sentence to further clarify that Alaska, B.C., and the contiguous western states should are separate management areas. -IGTaylor (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How big is it?

Seriously, can we get a "morphology and body size" section? According to fishwatch.gov, females can exceed three feet in length and start reproducing at 6 1/2 years and over two feet, and males start reproducing at 5 years and 1.9 feet (no word on their max size), which is just barely enough information for my purposes and generally not enough to be getting on with. Matthias von Schwarzwald (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added text on size and weight to the Description section. If you need more detail, such as information on maturity, see the referenced documents. And feel free to add what you find to the wiki page. -IGTaylor (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Known parasites

Known parasites should be added. 162.219.229.245 (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]