From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Food and Drink task list:
To edit this page, select here
Nuvola apps package editors.png

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:
Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.
WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of fisheries, aquaculture and fishing. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can register your interest for the project and see a list of open tasks.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I wonder how long it took for other families to start producing kippers? The Robson firm in Craster are into the fourth generation and are using very old smokehouses.

Yes - the article assumes that the story is true, though I don't know if there is a date attached to it. I wonder if it is generally accepted that the place is Seahouses really did invent kippering?? Nevilley 07:53 Feb 4, 2003 (UTC)

Kippers IS a cultural word[edit]

"Kipper's for breakfast" is a stereotypical British saying that I can off the top of my head remember mention by both Super Tram (Breakfast in America), Bart Simpson (Bart of Darkness episode) and I know there are more, just can't think of any. Perhaps someone else can come up with more. Should it have it's own cultural reference section? I'm not an editor, just a point-it-out-'er Fadedroots (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Smoke me a Kipper for breakfast" is a catch phrase of Dave Lister --Thefrood talk 23:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The precise sentence is "Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast." said by Ace Rimmer, not Dave Lister, in the episode "Dimension Jump". MidlandLinda (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not entirely sure of the Danish origin of Kippen but believe it to be accurate.

Stbalbach 09:12, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Old English origin[edit]

The Old English origin of kipper is sourced from the [[1911_Encyclop%E6dia_Britannica|1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica]]

Kipper Legends[edit]

The origin of kippers is Old English. Old English dates back a thousand years or more. This is established by the 1911 Encylopedia Brittanica entry for kipper (see google, the "k" volume has not been made avilable yet to Wikipedia as of this writing). Since kipper is pre-historic and there is no definitive origin story on record, there is probably more than one kipper origin legend in the world, and they would all be very local in flavour, perhaps helping the merchant or town who created the legend.

The main body of the kipper article should not be clutterd up with all these local legend refrences.. it is confusing and inaccurate. Scholaraly research shows that "kipper" has been around for a long time dateing back a thousand years or more. The legend should either be clearly marked as "false", or it should be moved to a seperate "legends" article. One or the other. I have tried but keep getting my changes set back. Have fun.

But actually in its present form, thanks to the additions you have made and the work of other editors, it's pretty good! You get the amusing local legend bit and the rebuttal giving dates and sources, so I think it's the best of both worlds. Thanks and well done. -- 18:53, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Edibility of spawning fish[edit]

The article states in at least two places that spawning fish are not edible unless kippered. We here in the Pacific Northwest love to eat many species of fish (mainly the Pacific salmon species) caught on their way to spawn. While salmon certainly can be smoked and/or kippered, it is most commonly eaten without such preservation. Perhaps the article could specify if there are indeed other species which must be kippered in order to be palatable. -- BlueCanoe 01:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over two years since I wrote this. I remember my source said it, but I don't remember my source (ie. inline citations are a good thing, even for your own future reference). I thought it was unusual also, I had never heard that before. Perhaps what they meant was, because spawning fish are caught in large numbers in a short period of time they need to be preserved so they remain editable. I suspect that is what is meant here (this is certainly true for indigenous people in the Pacific west coast no?). I will change it. -- Stbalbach 15:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pull/snatch the viscera?[edit]

Wetman, do you have a source for this (bold part):

The Old English origin of the word has various parallels referring to the process of stripping away the fishes' viscera, such as Icelandic kippa which means "to pull, snatch" and the Danish word kippen which means "to seize, to snatch".

It goes on to say:

Similarly, the English kipe denotes a basket used to catch fish.

Wouldn't it make more sense that "to pull, snatch" is the process of catching the fish with a basket during spawning periods when they are schooled up in masses, such as what the English word suggests? I've cleaned many a fish in my day, and never thought of it as pulling or snatching. I could be wrong, and since it seems to contrast with the English kipe definition, I was hoping you could provide a source for the fish cleaning station definition. -- Stbalbach 04:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the scraping action simply seemed intuitive to me. Revert my insertion id it's astray. --Wetman 04:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salted and smoked fish[edit]

According to this excellent article [1] there are a number of variants on the salted and smoked fish, "the differences lie in the type, combination and duration of the processes." It lists kipper, Yarmouth bloater, buckling, red herring and whitebait. I'm not sure it would make sense to have a separate article for each, would it make sense to have a single article called smoked salted fish or cured fish? -- Stbalbach 02:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found fish curing, smoked fish, salt-cured meat, curing (food preservation), smoking (cooking technique) - probably others. --Stbalbach 12:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My edits[edit]

Please see,, just as one example of many places where it is made clear that cold-smoked fish like kippers have to be cooked before being eaten. Perhaps Stbalbach is not familiar with cokking and kitchen techniques. "Kipper snacks" are defined in US food safety law as being pre-cooked so that the consumer can eat them "as is." The distinction is very real, and legal. 23:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused by Stbalbach's other comments. Kippers are not sushi: sushi (and sashimi, which is actually more often like what I think Stbalbach means to refer to) do use raw fish, but these are extremely fresh, are normally not cured (except for the smoked salmon in American markets, and this smoking process is different from the cold smoking of kippers). Also, nowehere does it say kippers are somehow only legally allowed to be eaten at breakfast - it says that they are often eaten at breakfast, and they are: scrambled eggs may be eaten at any hour of the day, as may cornflakes, but they are most often thought of as breakfast=-type foods, and the sentence is consistent with that in this case. I'm not sure what 'regional preparation" means - the different prep. techniques were not regioanlized, but listed as the most common ways kippers are cooked, in any region. I am not clear why there is such dismissive hostility in the edit comment: nothing added to the article was not true, common knowledge, fairly stated and nothing in it was derogatory or insulting to anyone. 23:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to out very own Smoking (cooking technique) article, lox is cold smoked. I've personally eaten un-cooked cold smoked herring (it was for supper!). Maybe there is some recent English law about it for food safety reasons, but that's a separate issue, the world is bigger than just the UK and the US, people have been eating uncooked cold smoked fish since time immortal. As for breakfast, again, people do things in lots of ways, my Korean friends family eat hamburgers for breakfast, and I'm sure 300 years ago peasants didn't worry about eating fish for breakfast when that was all they had to eat anyway. What your describing is a very British, very recent cultural norm. -- Stbalbach 01:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

adamantine nastyness shown in these edits. -- you need to stop these personal attacks. There is no "nastyness". If you can't deal with working through content issues on the talk page without making personal attacks then we have a bigger problem to deal with. Name calling is unacceptable. -- Stbalbach 01:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the admantine nastyness. The name-calling has been from your side, all about how I don't know what I'm talking about, and I'm Uk-centric (I'm American) , and etc. etc. First, my edits were neither British nor American based (I am an American). Second, the presence of botulism, listeria, and parasites in cold-smoked fish are extremely well-attested and widely known in the industry and government, and have been known for many years. Third, lox is not JUST cold-smoked - it is first salt-cured in a way which deals with a lot of these issues. Eating uncooked, cold-smoked kippers exposes someone to potential botulism poisoning. Nobody says one cannot have kippers for supper, the article as I edited said very specifically that yes, in the Uk, yes, it is a common breakfast food. I don't understand why that has generated such energetic hatred from you, particularly since you seem to bounce back and forth: you want the artricle edited according to YOUIR personal experinces ("Well, I have eaten such and such for dinner") but accuse me of basing it on MY personal experiences when I am actually quoting common government and industry standards. I'm sure you've eaten fish, but you really seem unfamiliar with how they are prepared and cooked. Perhaps you should back off a bit and leave that portion of the article to those who know more in that particular field. 01:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please confer: ; a private UK fish expert ; a US government note ; a UK government note ; a UN FAO note, which covers the whole world,M1 ; a scholarly treatise on the subject ; labelling requirements related to cold-smoked fish needing to be cooked How much evidence is necessary before people will simply leave this topic alone and stop, I don't know, reverting it based on medieval practices or something? 02:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult and unpleasant to work with someone who continues to make personal attacks like "energetic hatred", "admantine nastyness", "insist on having it his own way" and even accused me of calling you names (where?!). It seems pretty obvious we can't work this out on the talk page, I will ask for an administrator to review the edit history and provide some moderation. -- Stbalbach 22:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every edit has been 100 percent factual, I've even supplied numerous official and professional websites backing it up, and yes, Stbalbach, using a dismissive tone and constant reverting of edits simply because they aren't yours, making denigrating comments about the worth of others edits and stuff is very unprofessional and "nasty" on your part. I didn't name-call, I pointed out that you began this by reverting with constant belittling comments - that's not "incivility," it's pointing out your own incivility. Reverting factually accurate edits because you don't like the person making them, or, from your tone, you aren't happy with people trespassing on what you seem to regard as your page is not helpful to anyone. For instance, if you can factually refute the fact that the UK, US and Euro-union governments, as well as expert fishmongers and chefs all say one literally takes one's life in one's hands by eating uncooked cold-smoked fish (as exemplified by the numerous citations above), then you have some call to keep reverting, but to base your reverts on the fact that you claim to have eaten raw kippers and lived to tell the tale is the very "personal experience" you high-handedly and dismissively originally labelled my edits. People in ancient times probably ate raw chicken, people in the Middle Ages probably ate raw eggs, steak tartare is raw beef and long considered a delicacy, but advising someone to eat these today is begging for salmonella poisoning. Your reverts have shown that you really don't know anything about cooking -- OK, there's no law that says you have to, but on the other hand how would you stand for somebody re-editing all of your Anglo-Saxon pages on the basis of once having had to read Beowulf for high school English class? You really don't know what you're talking about here, and that's fine -- nobody is an expert in everything and there is no shame in walking away from a page and saying to yourself, "gee, I guess i didn't know what I was talking about, and now I've learned something new from somebody who does," but to constantly adamantly revert based on nothing, and particularly certain edits which really do put people's health at risk from thinks like botulinum and listeria, is completely counterproductive. It's a goddam entry on a type of edible fish -- why are you clinging to it like someone is attacking your religion? 18:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting the edits. Place your suitable sources for the information concerned below this line and settle to a resolution. Also be aware of the 3RR rule. Thank you.--KZTalkContribs 22:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, you filed your comments without bothering to read any of the talk? You demand sourcing, but if you had read the talk you would see that I clearly already provided extensive sourcing, and that what Stbalbach keeps insisting on with absolutely no sourcing at all, is simply wrong. Why must all my sourcing now be repeated "below the line"? Why is pointing out the high-handed and dismissive language of Stbalbach, which he started right from the beginning, and continues, worthy of a stern warning against me, but he is permitted to keep reverting my absolutely factually backed-up edits with nasty comments, and that's OK? The material is simply, factually untrue, even as currently edited by you, and is in fact a health hazard, but to preserve Stbalbach's hurt feelings I have to simple stop editing the page? I'm bewildered. I started making edits to a page I actually know quite a bit about professionally, with perfectly solid 3rd part sources, and I was taking all this Wikipedia philosophy seriously, and yet I am treated like an incompetent leper. Consider it "incivil" of me, but man oh man, does Wiki make people feel like this is all about some in-crowd and a lot of cliques of editors and administrators, and nothing to do with accuracy or comptetence in the field. I've read a lot of criticism of Wikipedia in the press and online, and I thought it was all crazy, but geez, you try to make an article about food less harmful to people's health and because some Medieval historian has suddenly made kippers his religion, having apparently never set foot in a kitchen, you get slammed by the "government" of Wikipedia. What a way to completely turn off anybody with any actual expertise, and no agenda or "cause" to push, from ever wanting to get involved with Wikipedia. 23:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted back to your version of the edits, so please regain your patience. I asked Stbalbach to keep it this way until this dispute is over. You have not been treated as a "incompetent leper", as stated, but I apologize in advance if you feel that you have been. --KZTalkContribs 00:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence by User:[edit]

Forget it. This has opened my eyes to what Wikipedia truly is when it comes to a reliable information source. The reputation and the negative press Wikipedia has gotten I'm begeining to think is richly deserved. Stbalbach can do whatever he wants to the article, and so can you. This is my last visit in any way, shape or form to Wikipedia since clearly I won't be permitted to contribute and whatever information I can offer is clearly unwanted. I think you and Stbalbach better hope that liability law never allows somebody who gets hospitalized or worse with clostridium botulinum to sue you and Stbalbach because of what was presented as reliable on Wikipedia. I don't have the energy to fight for what is blackletter accepted uncontroversial information anywhere else in the world. Have a nice day. 00:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really kind of laughing over this because nothing I did in my latest edit changed anything of substance to what the anon editor wrote. Everything was kept. All I did was move it out of the Lead Section, per the guidelines at WP:LEAD into the body of the article - many new users mistakingly believe that the more "important" information is, the higher up towards to top of the article is goes, which is not the case, see WP:LEAD. Also, there are different ways to prepare Kipper, this article covers not only modern smoking techniques (used for flavor purposes) but the traditional heavy salting and smoking (used for preservation), so I added a qualifier to that end. These two things: moving content to the body of the article and 2) adding a qualifier on the different ways of preservation. Comments? -- Stbalbach 14:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it doesn't really matter now because it isn't really a dispute anymore. The ip has recently quit Wikipedia. --KZTalkContribs 07:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red herrings?[edit]

Is this for real? The article on red herring makes no mention of this definition of red herring:

"A red herring is a whole unsplit fish. Red herring can be served cold, sliced thinly across the body with new bread and butter or a salad as a starter." 14:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I support the merge with Kipper season. Brandonrush (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As there were no objections, I carried out this merge (really more of a redirect - there was no content in the other article which wasn't already in this one). Terraxos (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I remeoved the "The John West brand of canned kipper fillets is a commonly found item in stores or supermarket sections devoted to imported British foodstuffs." because it is nothing more than an ad. Kipper smacks of various brands are available at most US supermakets in the canned fish section and British foods in the British food section. (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Time immemorial"[edit]

Under Origin, it says:

The exact origin of kippers is unknown, though fish have been slit, gutted and smoked since time immemorial.

While this is lovely, poetic, and most likely accurate, the citation provided doesn't really support "time immemorial," since the cite references Lewis and Clark, which is 18th century. Also, it doesn't actually provide a REFERENCE, just says that L&C saw Native Americans smoking salmon, without saying how we know they saw it. --DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 13:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When is a kipper not a kipper?[edit]

Supermarkets (er, co-op, tesco ..) have recently taken to selling a disgusting boil-in the-bag product, usually called "kipper fillets" that bears little resemblance to the real thing. When you read deep into the label, it apparently contains "responsibly sourced" herring (95%), salt and a little butter (2.5%), an unspecified 2.5%. and the lurid yellow colour comes from annatto, a known allergen. I shall have to undertake further research to find out what further travesties have been committed in the name of profits.

Is there any precedence for these things being legally presented as kippers? Or is the term un-protected, so you can sell any rubbish and call it that?

A kipper by any other name.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Memethuzla (talkcontribs) 13:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing recent about this, if I recollect correctly supermarkets were selling the travesty that are boil in the bag kippers when I was a kid in the 1970's --Thefrood talk 23:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kippered Herring can190g Appel.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]


An image used in this article, File:Kippered Herring can190g Appel.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 17 October 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal: Orange kipper[edit]

There is a degree of overlap between this article and Orange kipper, so I'm wondering if Orange kipper should be merged into this article.  --Thefrood talk 15:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge, due to significant article overlap. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge --Epipelagic (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support With a redirect from Orange kipper Mcewan (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"He eteþ no ffyssh But heryng red"[edit]

The section on Colouring has a quote that looks like vandalism to me. Is this the actual quote or did someone just make the quote look stupid as an act of vandalism? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 08:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Þou knowest not Middel Englissh? It is writyng moste propre. Þer be no maner or werke of meschief in þatt whych is wrote. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You mean this is just a Middle English quote? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 06:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is a relevant quote in Middle English, yes. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, did not notice until discussion. This is why discussions are so valuable. They prevent edit-wars and content disputes. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 09:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mostly glad that this worked out, because a side of me I rarely allow anywhere near Wikipedia was ready to edit war over the quote using only Middle English edit summaries and discussion. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peel produces thousands of somethings[edit]

The article reads, "Kippers produced in the Isle of Man are exported around the world.[13] Thousands are produced annually in the town of Peel ..."

OK. Thousands of tons (or tonnes)? Of fish? Of cans? Of kilograms? Of barrels? I have no idea what this sentence means. IAmNitpicking (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kipper. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]