Talk:Chinook salmon

message: Can someone find citeable info on "ivory salmon" to include in the article? --64.71.8.194 (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ivory salmon 

message: Jack Salmon refers to more than just a smaller Chinook salmon. It's a common item on restaurant menus in the midwest and it either refers to walleye or any number of fish known as whitings that are appetizing when fried.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.88.166.173 (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jack Salmon 

message: Why is there no distinction made between red fleshed and white fleshed chinook salmon in this article?
--96.48.80.74 (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red and White Chinooks 

message: odd to me that Canada is hardly even mentioned here. Pretty important fish in BC  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.199.227 (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top.</br> The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Valfontis (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Canada

message: Right now, there are 2 lifecycle sections. We need to merge them.  There's a lot there to merge. Toddst1 (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  lifecycle sections 

message: So the graph showing trends in annual aquaculture production of farmed salmon shows that Canada used to be the major producer   and production ended very abruptly in 2004.   Either the data being graphed is bogus or incomplete,   or the aquaculture of this species collapsed dramatically in Canada around 2004,   which should be worth mentioning the reason of.Eregli bob (talk) 02:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That is unacceptable language to throw around, bogus graph. Even if the graph had an error in it, to call it bogus is  bordering on defamatory. In fact the graph faithfully charts the data reported by the FAO, the definitive authority on these matters. Check it yourself on their data base. Then go and tell them that they are bogus. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No,  Statistics Canada is the definitive statistical authority.   Organisations such as the FAO only collect information from national statistical agencies.Eregli bob (talk) 11:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

text: OK then, so there was a catastrophic collapse of the Canadian chinook salmon aquaculture industry then ?  Care to explain why ? Eregli bob (talk) 10:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I can't find a reference to it. It's not appropriate to call it "catastrophic". We're talking about only 10 to 15,000 tonnes a year, which might be catastrophic to a fish farm, but globally is a very small  amount. Maybe pathogens cleaned them out. That easily happens with farmed fish. Look around and you might find some references yourself. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: LOOK at the graph which you claim is definitive!    It shows the aquaculture production of Canada going from the largest in the world,  to zero,  in one year,  and staying at zero.   This did not happen !   Perhaps the right wing Canadian government declined to send in their statistic report to the FAO,  who knows,   but that FAO graph is BOGUS.   Statistics Canada's report show NO decline in the quantity or value of farmed salmon in Canada through to 2009.  FAO stupid, bogus and incorrect graph stands out like a sore thumb.  It fails the basic credibility test,   and should be replaced.Eregli bob (talk) 11:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

text: No, you fail the basic credibility test talking in such shrill and immoderate ways. You should consider some other hobby. There are other species of salmon that are farmed in much greater quantities, which explains those statistics. Look at the other Wikipedia articles on salmon to get a feel for it. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bogus graph 

message: Hello, I was reviewing this article and I noticed the most recent information in the article seems to be from 2010. Is there updated information on the populations more current to today? Sarah.Logan55 (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Older information 

message: Bibliography I have started on for research to add to articleSarah.Logan55 (talk) 03:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: ENVS 135

message: Basic information to add to this article: the etymology of the word "Tyee." 76.190.213.189 (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  To add to article 

message: , since it was added, the conservation status had been sourced to natureserve.org, which maintains a different status system than iucnredlist.org. IUCN does not have a status assessment for this species. I would prefer to give an IUCN status, if one existed, but the only sourceable status is TNC/NatureServe. Plantdrew (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Plantdrew Thank you for taking the time to reply to me. I see back and forth about the two systems, possibly based on nationality, and wonder whether Wikipedia has guidelines about their use. Moreover, Chinook conservation is a very political topic in the northeast Pacific, and the article is badly out of date—not that I am the person who can fix it. Rebecca Beecham Gotzl (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservation status 

message: — Assignment last updated by Rcophone (talk) 04:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: California Natural History