Talk:Fisherman

Latest comment: 3 years ago by 2A00:23C8:3D03:D300:6C1D:2EEA:A5F:B938 in topic Gender issues


Gender issues

edit

True or false: unlike "fireman", "policeman", and "mailman", which are now replaced by "fire fighter", "police officer", and "mail carrier", "fisherman" is still commonly accepted generically. 66.32.66.181 14:12, 16 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

Please Someone Add to this

edit

The second-oldest line of work that still exists?

edit

In the introductory part, is says that "Fishing has existed as a means of obtaining food since the Mesolithic period." I think that would make it the second-oldest line of work that exists and has done so continuously since it was first carried out by humans. The oldest would be gathering (not of fish, but of plants), which is still practiced for a living by some hunter-gatherers. I'm not a fisherman, but I think this is worth noting. --Tracerbullet11 (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Move

edit

I propose a move to "Fisher people" 68.148.164.166 (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

'Fisher people'? How would this work?
Suggested surely with a smirk!
While 'fisherman' is not quite PC
It's more oft used, I guarantee.
Rhyme & Reason (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Recreational Fisherman Picture

edit
File:Bowfin2009.1.jpg 0046.jpg
Fisherman with Bowfin fishing recreationally having fun practicing catch and release.

There should be a picture representing a recreational fisherman. This picture on the right is representative of a recreational fisherman tell me what you think. --Lord Clarence (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please place your comments at the bottom of pages, and not at the top. The picture you are suggesting seems to be of a clown who wants to show off his muscles, and thinks fishing is something to do with American football. This is not a representative image of a recreational fisherman. At best, it is an attempt, of questionable taste, to be humorous. There are over 6,000 images available on fishing at commons, many of which include recreational fishermen. You need to establish why your image is more eppropriate than the others available. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Reply


Epipelagic, I see what you are trying to do here and I don't like it. I am not going to be feeding any trolls today. The way you are talking in the forum is harassment. I do not see how that picture has anything to do with football. A recreational fisherman could have any type of physical appearance. A fisherman could be muscular, skinny, or even over weight. You cannot judge a fisherman on physical appearance. This is not questionable taste, and I am not attempting to be funny. This is a great photo of a recreational fisherman. What does a recreational fisherman look like to you? --Lord Clarence (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Lord ClarenceReply
LC the picture you are refering to doesnt convey the message of a recreational fisherman, it could equally just be a man buying a fish from monger at a village market. Any picture should at least include some fishing equipment preferably in use, a veiwer should be able to tell the person is fishing for recreation not for sport or commercial reasons. Gnangarra 07:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fisherman. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply