![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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]])
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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
I received the following email from Michael Quinion about the Stuffee reference:
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)
I noticed that you removed the Mother Goose quotation from this article:
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)
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)
Are you saying that if the article quoted Mother Goose, that would be a red herring? Aymatth2 ( talk) 20:01, 10 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)
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)
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)
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! :) -- Green C 16:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Someone left the following Feedback:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Removed " An alternate etymology points to escaping convicts who used the pungent fish to throw off hounds in pursuit. [1]" 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)
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. -- Green C 21:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
References
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
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:
(Perhaps William Cobbett popularized rather than coined the phrase.) - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 18:29, 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)
Please fix. Wesko ( talk) 22:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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]])
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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
I received the following email from Michael Quinion about the Stuffee reference:
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)
I noticed that you removed the Mother Goose quotation from this article:
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)
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)
Are you saying that if the article quoted Mother Goose, that would be a red herring? Aymatth2 ( talk) 20:01, 10 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)
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)
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)
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! :) -- Green C 16:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Someone left the following Feedback:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Removed " An alternate etymology points to escaping convicts who used the pungent fish to throw off hounds in pursuit. [1]" 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)
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. -- Green C 21:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
References
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
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:
(Perhaps William Cobbett popularized rather than coined the phrase.) - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 18:29, 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)
Please fix. Wesko ( talk) 22:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)