Talk:Pálinka/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hunglish

This article would benefit from a review from a native English speaker. Reading sections of "Types" and "Varieties" makes me recall the "very famous" song of "Hello Tourist". There is no need to literally translate apricot, and peach, etc or to write any funny stories about etymology in an article about an alcoholic product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.126.161 (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Barack (pronounced "baratsk") Shouldn’t this be borotsk or something similar? Proper IPA would be better, of course, and the pronunciation hint should probably also be moved to the intro sentence. —ThorstenNY (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. NW (Talk) 15:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


Palinka → Pálinka — Relisted Vegaswikian (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC) This is a Hungarian short drink, a Hungaricum, The name is protected by EU. See: Palinka with PDO Fakirbakir (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Support. The diacritic does absolutely no harm, and under WP:IAR should simply be adopted. This move might even be a step towards making this a general guideline on diacritics, thus simplifying several other guidelines and avoiding many time-wasting controversies. Andrewa (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless evidence is given that the accent is used in English preferentially over the unaccented form. Legal documents do not make common usage. 65.93.14.29 (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • A google book search shows about equal use. An appellation strengthens the case for using "Pálinka", to make clear the article is about the specific brandy as defined by law, and not any old fruit alcohol.walk victor falk talk 17:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Palinka is now a naturalised English word and in English it is spelled without a diacritic. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Tentative oppose. We already have a general guideline on diacritics, ie, use them when they are used by English language reliable sources. WP:DIACRITICS. Evidence of usage is what is needed to make the argument here. Erudy (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but I can not understand what you all try to explain here. For instance, I should alter the name of Whisky or Whiskey to 'Viszki' (Hungarian grammar) in the Hungarian Wikipedia if I have to use English grammar for the Pálinka in this case. [1] It is a Hungaricum, It is Hungarian drink, not English, British etc.. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
You should do what Hungarian speakers do. If they call it "Whisky", call your article "Whisky". If they call it "Viszki", call it "Viszki". By your logic, you should change the Hungarian Wikipedia' entry for Pezsgő [2] to Champagne to comport with French convention, since by law Champagne is a drink only from France. While you're at it, you might change Skót whisky [3] to Scotch whisky, Konyak [4] to Cognac, Vermut [5] to Vermouth. Erudy (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Expansion of article to include Austrian Palinka and Romanian Palinca

NOTE: This discussion began at Talk:Palinca. But because it concerns expansion of this Palinka article, it was copied here on this date. See Talk:Palinca history for attribution. — CactusWriter (talk) 05:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I want to inform everyone that "palinca" is a romanian brand for fruit brandy. Even though there are similarities with the hungarian brand "Palinka", it's not the same. EU regulations have approved for each country who's in European Union a specific list of names for traditional alchool drinks. You can check more details here: http://www.festivalulpalincii.ro/files/tiny_mce/File/r_110_208_en.pdf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali.sweet (talk • contribs) 18:49, 25 March 2011

I think it is ok to treat the Hungarian and Romanian versions in the same article. So, the redirect is ok, but some explanation should be added to the article explaining the difference between the names. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Agreed. I think the introductory sentence should clarify the 2008 EU which limited the use of the name to the Hungarian version, but that the historical product is considered traditional in both Hungary (Palinka) and Romania (Palinca). We just need some proper references for that. — CactusWriter (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry for being so defensive, but I actually didn't had time to read all the rules as there are so many...I didn't thought that I will cause any trouble by just deleting the redirect on the page Palinca. I really want to solve this problem the right way. I've been doing some research on this matter and I can share with you other links about the differecences between these 2 brands. :::Here you can see other links: http://www.slovensko.com/news/106 http://courses.cit.cornell.edu/his452/Andrei/ContestedFoodinPostnationalist%20Europe/ContestedCuisine.html - at the bottom of this page you can find even more relevant links regarding this problem http://www.romania-insider.com/romanian-firm-plans-to-export-30000-bottles-of-palinca-to-us/16468/ - If you read this article you can have an idea why is it so bad to use the brand "palinca" as being Hungarian and not Romanian. People can jump to the conclusion that they are buying something else, when they really want to buy Romanian "palinca" and Romania can lose a lot of money that could come from exports of "palinca".
And since UE agreed to treat these brands different for each country by giving limit use of the name "palinca" to Romania and limited use of the name "palinka" to Hungary (please see the list of protected spirits for each country in UE: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOIndex.do?year=2008&serie=L&textfield2=39&Submit=Search&_submit=Search&ihmlang=en - the latest version of the law-2008), I was thinking to contribute in creating a page for the romanian brand "Palinca" with relevant links related to this brand, so that there will be no confusions about this. What do you think?
P.s: I've erased the sentence that was not proper to be used.Hope it's ok like this.Ali.sweet (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I am not yet convinced that it requires a separate article. And think the main article should simply be expanded to include Hungarian, Austrian and Romanian types. From what I have read, there isn't a great difference between the Hungarian/Austrian Palinka and Romanian Palinca -- other than the spelling and modern branding rights from the EU. It seems these are essentially the same product because of their historical and geographical overlap. Wikipedia takes no sides in political or economic battles -- our readers are best helped when a single article can provide them with all the basic relevant information. I have initiated the article expansion by changing the introduction to include both the Romanian and Hungarian terms. I think the history section should next be rewritten to be inclusive of the entire historical region, rather than so specific to modern Hungary. The EU section rewritten to include the 2008 determination for each country. Then separate sections provided for Hungary, Romania and Austria which can address any specific regionalism. — CactusWriter (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add a few things regarding „Palinca” and „Palinka” differences that can be clearly seen bellow:

I will refer now only to the sections included in the hungarian „Palinka” page on Wikipedia: I agree - EU legal definition section should be changed completely. Since 2002, UE has issued new laws, as there where many conflicts regarding the rights to use „Palinka” only by hungarians., so that all the countries are protected by EU regulations. The history section should include, as you’ve already mentioned, impartial points of view. All of the three countries involved claim to be the founders of this specific product, so it shouln’t be accepted only hungarian point of view. When you refer to separate sections provided for Hungary, Romania and Austria which can address any specific regionalism do you refer in changing every section on the page or just adding new ones? Because, there are differences between these brands. For example: Types of „Palinka” – this section only describes the hungarian types - In Romania, there are 21 types of „Palinca”, governed by Order no. 147 from 08.03.2005 issued by by Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development (http://www.mapam.ro/pages/legislatie.php?offset=147&limit=20) that approves protected and recognized geographical names for spirit drinks in Romania. 1. Pălinca de Bihor 2. Rieni Palinca de Bihor 3. Pălinca de Zalau 4. Pălinca de Ardeal 5. Pălinca de Maramures 6. Pălinca Carpatii Apuseni 7. Pălinca Transilvania 8. Pălinca Româneasca “Tricolor” 9. Pălinca de Brad 10. Pălinca de Banovita 11. Pălinca de Câlnau 12. Pălinca Crai Nou 13. Pălinca de Valea Vinului 14. Pălinca de Mediesu Aurit 15. Pălinca de Camârzan 16. Pălinca de Oas 17. Pălinca de Cluj 18. Pălinca de Focsani 19. Pălinca de Dragosloveni 20. Pălinca de Vrancea 21. Pălinca de Jari tea „Variaties” section only speaks about hungarian variaties. Romania also has many variaties of palinca as you may see at the types of products section above. Also: Commercial production: As you may see below, the production of hungarian „Palinka” and romanian „Palinca” is different. See: Regulations on the definition, description, presentation and labeling traditional Romanian spirit drinks stated in Order nr. 368 from 13.06.2008 issued by Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development, Ministry of Public Health and chairman of the National Authority for Consumer Protection (http://www.madr.ro/pages/industrie_alimentara/ordin-368-din-13-iunie-2010.pdf), regarding „palinca”:

  • A) fermentation of the fruit is done in wooden vats or tanks or in fermentation vessels made of stainless steel, depending on the area where the fruit were produced, of varieties and the specific technology applied;
  • B) distillation process is made in copper boilers with direct combustion or in distillation plants at an alcoholic strength that does not exceed 70% vol so that the distillated product has an aroma and taste derived from the fruit or fruits; redistillation at same alcoholic strength is authorized;
  • C) having a volatile content greater than or equal to 200 grams per hectolitre of 100% vol
  • D) having a hydrocyanic acid content, if palinca product is made of fruits stone fruits, not more than 7 grams per alchool hectolitre of 100% vol
  • E) having a maximum methyl alcohol content of 1.000 grams per hectolitre of 100% vol for the following fruit: plum (Prunus domestica L.), mirabelle (Prunus domestica L. subsp. Syriaca-Borkh., Janch . Ex. Mansf.) brumării plum (Prunus domestica L.), apple (Malus domestica Borkh.) pear (Pyrus communis L.), with the exception of Williams pears (Pyrus communis L. cv 'Williams'), raspberry (Rubus idaeus L.), blackberry (Rubus fruticosus auct. AGGR.) apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) and peach [Prunus persica (L.) Batsch], methyl alcohol content not exceeding 1.200 grams per hectolitre of 100% vol for the following fruit: Williams pear (Pyrus communis L. cv 'Williams'), red currant (Ribes rubrum L.), black currant (Ribes nigrum L.), rowan berry (Sorbus aucuparia L.), elder (Sambucus nigra L.), quince (Cydonia oblonga Mill.) and juniper berries (Juniperus communis L. and / or Juniperus oxicedrus L.), methyl alcohol content not exceeding 1.350 grams per hectolitre of 100% vol
  • F) use in the manufacture of palinca products of sweetening products is not permitted;
  • G) use in the manufacture palinca caramelized sugar is not allowed not even with the purpose to adapt the color, yellow or golden yellow color being obtained by aging in oak barrels;
  • H) use in the manufacture of palinca of flavoring substances, flavoring preparations , colorants, ethyl alcohol of agricultural origin or a distillate of agricultural origin is not permitted;
  • I) combining (blending) is permitted;
  • J) The minimum alcoholic strength is 40% vol marketed for consumption;
  • K) storage, preservation and product obsolescence takes place in wooden vessels, stainless steel or glass.

Last, but not least, the introduction phrase has been again modified in the sense of excluding the romanian „Palinca”...So I think it should be changed again. Please make sure that all of the things described above will be included on the page „Palinka” and not deleted after being added as the introductory sentence was...P.S: thank you for being impartial and for trying to solve this problem in the best way possible...89.132.134.35 (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that reference. It shows there doesn't appear to be significant difference between the Romanian and Hungarian products. According to EU regulations for fruit spirit, your points C) D) E) H) are the same for both Palinka and Palinca. A comparison of Hungarian regulations with your list shows that points A) B) F) G) I) and J) are also the same for both. It appears that the only regulatory difference is Hungary uses the EU stipulation for "fruit spirit" of a minimum 37.5% alcoholic content, whereas Romania sets the minimum for Palinca at 40%. I suggest adding three separate sections for Austria, Hungary and Romania which will include the information about regional variations and geographic types. — CactusWriter (talk) 05:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello again. You are right about the production process. I didn't know there is almost the same procedure to obtain palinca, but it's good that EU stated regulations for all types of palinca/palinka produced in Romania and Hungary/Austria, so that the quality is higher. I only saw what it was written on the article (see: section EU legal definition: "The production of palinka in the European Union is regulated by order 1-3-1576/89, which took effect on 1 July 2002. According to the regulation, an alcoholic beverage may be called palinka in the EU only if: 1. it is made 100-percent from fruits or herbs indigenous to the Carpathian Basin and grown in Hungary, or from pomace grown in Hungary, and does not contain any additives,2. it is produced and bottled in Hungary, 3. its alcohol content is between 37.5% and 86% ABV." and since the article I provided says something different I thought there are big differences. But this proves once again that the article written about "Palinka" should be completely modify. It's clearly impartial and the quotations are really old and not true at this moment. It's true that in 2004 EU granted Hungary exclusive rights on the name "palinka" but this was only for a short while, as UE didn't take into account that Romania and Austria are also producing a similar type of "palinka" and granted afterwards rights also to Romania and Austria.

So, yes, there should be 3 different sections for each country, where there can be added information about specific traditions, products and consumption for each of these countries. So who will make these changes? I could provide relevant articles related to "Palinca" made in Romania.What about Austria? And who will make the appropiate changes for Hungary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.132.134.35 (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Any editor is welcome to make edits to the article -- provided, of course, that they adhere to Wikipedia policies on neutral point-of-view and reliable sources. I'll try and rearrange the article and make the subsections in the next few days. First I would like to read good sources for the history section which provide an overview of historical Palinka/Palinca distillation for the entire Carpathian region. If you know of any, please add them. — CactusWriter (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Palinka is a traditional Hungarian drink for many centuries. The fact that a similar sounding name was recently introduced to confuse customers does not mean that it's a foreign language translation or anything like that. It's just a similar sounding name such as ADIDAS is a real brand and ADIDIDAS is not a translation but a name chosen for purpose of deception. The recent trademark issues have nothing to do with this traditional drink. It's like saying Vine instead of Wine for marketing purposes, it is irrelevant to the main point of the article. This is not a promotional article nor is it the job of wikipedia to engage in advertising or promotion. Tüzes fal (talk) 08:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I am glad that you understand that Wikipedia is not to be used to promote one thing over another -- nor is it to be used as a political battlefield -- but your removal of sourced information from the lede appears to do exactly that. Yes, sources indicate Palinka is a traditional Hungarian drink -- sources also indicate it is the same traditional Austrian drink and the same traditional Romanian drink. In fact, the sources indicate these fruit spirits were distilled for many centuries in a wide area of the Carpathian basin regardless of political boundary. And removing the sourced information provides a false impression that this drink was/is limited to Hungary. This article appears to be about the traditional drink -- not simply a trademarked name. Wikipedia is not to be used for nationalist battles -- and these opinions about deception appear unsupported. The important thing here is to provide readers with a correct overview of the entire subject. Anything else is a violation of WP:NPOV. I take no sides in this battle, so if you can offer a better solution for inclusion of the information, I'm willing to hear it. But elimination simply because it mentions other countries is improper. — CactusWriter (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I made sure that Nothing was removed (no sources etc) simply moved to the appropriate section which concerns modern production. We should not mix the two. In modern times Pálinka is produced in Hungary and similar products under a similar sounding name are produced elsewhere due to EU directiv. But EU directives in the past few years have nothing to do with the fact that Pálinka is a traditional Hungarian drink. It is not a traditional Austrian drink by any measure, it's a drink NOW also produced in Austria (in modern times). Products with any degree of success are often copied or imitated, let's add to the fact that a large number of Hungarians live in Transylvania and some in Austria as well, it is not far-fetched to think that they continued to produce their traditional drink. I agree that the article should mention that NOWDAYS the drink is also produced under a similarly sounding brand name for advertising purpuses (palinca), but this should go into the appropriate sections (modern production, EU branding isseues section). When talking about promotion and advertising I was talking about a participant in the discussion above who said "If you read this article you can have an idea why is it so bad to use the brand "palinca" as being hungarian and not romanian. People can jump to the conclusion that they are buying something else, when they really want to buy romanian "palinca" and Romania can loose a lot of money that could come from exports of "palinca"." This makes clear that this participant is concerned with boosting sales and "exports of palinca" and Romanian exporters "losing money" and trying to counteract this loss by wikipedia promotion and advertising. I think modern production, sales exports, marketing branding and advertising should be a part of the article but not the primary part, a small part as Wikipedia's primary focus is not providing these services. The primary focus should be in my view explaining this traditional drink and it's history. Tüzes fal (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that you kept the sourced information about Austria and Romania -- because until I added that, the article failed to make any mention of these other traditional producers of this fruit spirit. As you have noted (and independent sources state), Palinka is a generic product and not a brand name -- and focusing on one national product despite other sources would be factually incomplete. This would be like the article on beer only discussing the Bavarian product simply because that was the first region to regulate production and claim it as a national drink.
You are correct in that it is important to fully explain the drink and its history. Therefore, because sources state the history predates current geopolitical boundaries; and because reliable sources relate the drink's origins to a number of regions in "Central Europe", the "Carpathian basin", the "Hapsburg empire", the "Kingdom of Hungary", etc.; and because sources say the origin of the drink is claimed by Austrians, Hungarians and Romanians: this needs to be related in the article. The article requires expansion to explain the entire topic.
I am not interested in hearing any editor making nationalist arguments here -- whether they are pro-Romanian, pro-Austrian nor pro-Hungarian. I am aware that there is bitter rivalry between these nations, but I don't want to read speculations about the national interests of editors on Wikipedia. My only interest is seeing a reliably sourced Wikipedia article which provides a thorough and neutral discussion of the topic. Perhaps you can offer positive help during expansion of the article. — CactusWriter (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear participant, it is very clearly that this article is about strictly your opinion and not about giving relevant information about this particular kind of spirit. as you’ve already stated yourself: The primary focus should be in my view explaining this traditional drink and it's history.” As Wikipedia already mention that „Any editor is welcome to make edits to the article -- provided, of course, that they adhere to Wikipedia policies on neutral point-of-view and reliable sources” in previous conversations, I think you are a little confused whether you should have posted this article on Wikipedia or to make your own blog, where you can indeed share your point of view. And since you haven’t supported your „point of view” in this conversation, with relevant articles or/and quotations, everything you’ve stated is irrelevant and clearly impartial. And I want to ensure you that this article shouldn’t be rewritten for advertising purposes, but for the simple fact that you are not presenting the truth about this drink. And the fact that I’ve shared this article about romanian exports of palinca, should give you a proper answer why „palinca” it is not considered as you said „copied or imitated”, but a traditional romanian drink,with great recognition abroad. And the fact that you „ agree that the article should mention that NOWDAYS the drink is also produced under a similarly sounding brand name for advertising purpuses (palinca)” is purely improper to say. Palinca has been produced in Romania for many centuries and not only NOWADAYS and the fact that here lived/live also hungarian people, there’s no proof that it was indeed passed from hungarians to romanians. So, unless you desire to create your own blog, you should comply with Wikipedia rules and provide rellevant and actual sources to support your oppinions. 89.132.134.35 (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Beyond a certain level I do not think it is possible to debate. Statements such as "Palinca has been produced in Romania for many centuries" is evidence of nonsense based discussion. By opening any non-chauvinist history book one can find that country called Romania is not "many centuries" old, being founded in 1859. This coupled with constant referrals to desire to advertise "romanian exports of palinca" makes it likely that the article is to be used for promotional purposes for the brand name "palinca". Someone called ali.sweet also seems to be making legal threats [6] in this exact same issue... I don't know if Ali sweet is posting under multiple identities in this same discussion. Anyway we really should not mix the EU directiv with the real issues here. The article should describe these things accurately, what if the EU gives the opportunity to influential France to produce a similar drink under the name "pálinnka" with double "n", this does not make a traditional Hungarian drink into a "traditional French drink". It means that by the 2008 EU directive they gained the right to produce a similar product under a similar sounding name... But now we are in the realm of marketing and promotion. Obviously someone who is interested in the "exports of palinca" would want a whole subsection dedicated to the "Romanian palinca", that much is clear... But let's consider this 1. We know that Pálinka is a traditional Hungarian drink. (sources in the article) 2. We know that large parts of Hungary were conquered by Romania in the Hungarian-Romanian War of 1919. 3. As a result of conquest millions of Hungarians found themselves outside of Hungary without going anywhere. 4. What if they continue to produce their traditional drink as they always did? Should we wipe their culture out and say everything these Hungarians do is "Romanian"? In the appropriate section we should list all the branding and EU directiv issues without giving too much undeserved influence to this issue over the article. Tüzes fal (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for writing this much, I think I got a little carried away, sorry again. I'm not even an exporter producer or otherwise financially interested in this product so the best option I think is allowing Ali Sweet what he wanted and changing the use of the "palinca" wikipedia entry so it would no longer redirect here... That would be the best solution because there he could explain whatever he wants about exports and production methods and values that are only relevant to the "palinca" brand name. Tüzes fal (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
No problem with getting "a little carried away". Understood. But here is the reply anyway.
1) The legal threat issue was already investigated ( that is how I ended up on this page) and it was resolved to my satisfaction.
2) The problem with the current state of the article is not what is there -- but what is omitted. For example, the history section jumps from an unsourced mention of "aqua vitae" (which is wine brandy) and the origin of the name as a non-Magyar word describing wheat brandy. But it omits the Austrian development of fruit brandy in Transylvania (modern Romania) and Hungary during the Hapsburg Empire in the 17th/18th century (As stated by Sari Edelstein in Food, Cuisine and Cultural Competency for Culinary, Hospitality and Nutrition Professionals (2011) and Sorin Cazacu's The Battle for Palinka (2003)). It was at this time Palinka was popularized throughout these regions. (Edelstein cites G. Lang's Cuisine of Hungary).
3) Another example, the EU section was equally lacking since it focused on 2002/2004 when Romania was not an EU member until 2007. It lacked any mention of the 2008 regulation. And it still lacks explanation of the EU dispute created because the same drink is claimed by tradition in Austria, Hungary and Romania -- as clarified in E. Tomiuc, Hungary/Romania: Spirited Dispute Looms Over Right To Use Plum Brandy Name In The EU (2002), Komuves' Home of the Booze (2011) and Cazacu.
4) A complete article created at Palinca (over the redirect) is also a possibility if the expansion here becomes too cumbersome. — CactusWriter (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I will try to ignore the irrelevance of what the other participant posted in his previous comment about the history of Romania and I would like to suggest him to search in every book of history or better on Wikipedia about the history of this modern Romania, so that he will know that our ancestors have been living in this territories for thousands of years, even though under a different name. The important thing is that there are relevant sources that talk about the history of this drink in these territories. Also, I think it should indeed exist a different page for “Palinca”, because it is a traditional Romanian drink of which there are a lot of things to be written about, as “palinka” is also a Hungarian and Austrian drink about there are a lot of things to be written about too. And since I completely agree that there are similarities between “palinca” and “palinka”, on each one of these pages should exist this introductory paragraph which will clarify its origins in Romania, Hungary and Austria (as you’ve already written it). Also, there should be the same EU legal section, which will state that each one of these brands was equally recognized by UE (2008) as being traditional in Romania, Hungary and Austria. This way, everyone is welcome to bring relevant quotations about each of these traditional drinks and it will also be clarified the status and the common history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.133.130.178 (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I have added a NPOV tag to the article as, although the discussion here has not concluded, Fakirbakir has steadily removed any non-hungarian references from the article. R2cosmin (talk) 04:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

As for Austria, their regulations' details [7] acknowledge that "Barack Palinka" (barack is apricot in Hungarian) is – historically – the same spirit as Hungarian barackpálinka/apricot pálinka. EU regulations [8] also treat them as a single category (pálinka), so there shouldn't be any doubt about it.
As for Hungarian/Austrian pálinka and Romanian pălincă/palinca, officially, they're different drinks (see EU regulations again). The words pálinka and pălincă are derived from a Slavic term "pálit" meaning fire (thus pálinka used to mean any distilled beverage, much like brandy/brandewijn [burnt wine] did), so it's highly arguable if the two were originally the same spirit or not. What's official is that Romania have shown adequate evidence to the EU after their EU accession about "pălincă" being a distinct, traditional Romanian spirit, that being the only way to get PDO for it. I'm afraid we've seen no other sources to be taken serious. – Phoney (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Palinca

The EU regulations do apply to Pálinka. Palinca is a different story and it has to have an own article.Fakirbakir (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Pálinka and Palincă are both recognised geographical indicators in the EU today, and production is controlled by local laws of Hungary, Romania, and Austria, within the guidelines of European fruit spirits. Hungarian and Romanian laws are only slightly different, and there is no professional mentioning either from Hungarian or Romanian side that they are indeed different spirits (on the contrary, they're generally considered the same historical drink). Please see the above debate as well. Based solely on EU indicators, we also should state things like "cognac is not a brandy but a wine spirit". – Phoney (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Pálinka with PDO

Palinka with PDO has been suggested to be merged with this article, but there hasn't been any talk about it. The article itself is barely informative, since it offers no detailed information about the PDOed pálinkas at all. What it has is just missing from here. I also find it disadvantageous to have a single article for 8 PDOs with different regulations. – Phoney (talk) 08:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Support I agree with user Phoney. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I have done it. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Myth of special methods

Under the 2008 "Hungarian Pálinka Law", only distilled beverages made using special methods and technology, from fruits produced in Hungary, mashed, distilled, matured and bottled locally can be called pálinka. – from the article. Even though the idea of "special methods and technology" required for pálinka is widespread in Hungary, it's a misinterpretation of the regulation. The law's text states that the spirit must be made according to the method specified by 9th category of Annex II. of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008, which, in fact, couldn't be less special – it's the method by which all European fruit spirits must be made. The only technical requirement the law adds to that method is that it must be distilled from a mash of ripe fleshy fruits. – Phoney (talk) 11:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

EU Regulations

Did anyone check REGULATION (EC) No 110/2008? Please see page 35. Pălinca is not Pálinka, the first is produced in Romania, and the second in Hungary and Austria (for apricot spirits solely produced in the Länder of: Niederösterreich, Burgenland, Steiermark, Wien). As result I consider that Pălinca should be an separate article, and the redirect to Pálinka was a mistake. Also, Palenka claimed by Slovakia should be deleted as is not specified in the EU regulations, and such as not recognised. Best regards,Silenzio76 (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not a traditional Hungarian spirit, is a traditional Transylvanian spirit, and doesn't have anything to do with nowdays nationalistic speech. Silenzio76 (talk) 02:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Silenzio, Most of 'Pălinca' as you say is made in Hungarian regions of Transylvania. I have a bottle right in-front me. This particular bottle was distilled in Maramureș aka Máramaros a traditionally Hungarian area originally. Also, Transylvania was part of Hungary for nearly a thousand years. Hungarian Palinka was invented way before Transylvania was part of Romania in 1918. In-fact there are many cuisines in Hungary that come from Transylvania, yet, are from the Hungarian minority NOT Romanians in Transylvania. Like the Székely káposzta (Szeklerland Saurekraut)or the Kürtőskalács. A snippet from the Wiki article on Kürtőskalács (The first known recipe of Kürtőskalács originates from Transylvania, included in the 1784 cookbook of Countess Mária Mikes of Zabola ("‘kürtős kaláts’ à la Mrs. Poráni"). Now, it says 'originates from Transylvania'. Would you say Silenzio say that it is Romanian?? Remember, many ethnic groups had adopted a lot of Hungarian cuisines like Gulyás, Lecso etc. Mind you, I have heard a ridiculous answer once from a Serbian saying Gulyás was Serbian etc. and from a Polish that Lecsó (vegetable stew) was Polish, just because it is popular there. In an honest answer, I think it was the Romanians who probably adopted Palinka from the Hungarians in Transylvania and made some changes to make it different. Just like the Hungarians have adopted the Strudel (in Hungarian - Rétes), Spätzle (Hungarian - Nokedli) and other things from the Austrians and Germans, except we call it under a different name making it seems it's also Hungarian by origin. I think this is the same case with Pălinca in Romania.
Norbi, if you agree that is a Transylvanian product, then we have no argument here. I am not going to get into the complicated history of this land, as many other complicated histories in Europe. History is poissoned with too much religious and nationalistic non-sense. There is no proof that this product was invented by a Hungarian, Romanian, German or anyother nationals whom may have lived on this land. Silenzio76 (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

EU regulations cannot safely confirm that pălinca represents a separate tradition. We can say that the present concept of pálinka had evolved in post-Trianon Hungary in the 20th century (with "grain pálinka", "potato pálinka" and such going extinct), so pălinca might have became an independent tradition as well, but getting a geographical indication alone doesn't prove this. Certainly, pălinca could be a separate article, provided there are reliable sources with sufficient information (that preferably make pălinca a distinct category other than in the legal sense.) As for pálenka: the lack of legal acknowledgement does not make a category non-existent. (Absinthe is not recognised as a legal category anywhere in the world but Switzerland; still, we have to acknowledge its worldwide tradition and existence. Also see schnapps.) The correct question would be the same as with pălinca: can it be verified as a well established concept or not? – Phoney (talk) 09:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Invention and historical concept of pálinka

Anyone claiming that pálinka was invented in the Middle Ages in "Romania" please clarify. (Hint: When was the state Romania born? Are we going to hear next time that Traian conquered Romania instead of Dacia?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.237.190 (talk) 08:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

In fact, no historical sources mention fruit brandies in medieval Carpathian Basin (or anywhere else in the era, as far as I know), and neither the word "pálinka" was used. More importantly, nothing implies that Hungarians or Romanians invented their fruit brandies on their own. Also, the article completely ignores the fact that the Hungarian word "pálinka" historically denoted any distilled spirits (regardless of mash ingredients or country of origin), was never associated specifically with fruit brandies until the 20th century, and did not explicitly mean such until 2004. I'll be fixing this up as soon as I'll have time. – Phoney (talk) 13:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
That statement is highly dubious, OR, (I have already deleted it in the article). Fakirbakir (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Pálinka vs Pălincă (again)

Dear IP (86.44.39.94), currently you are doing disruptive editing [9] by deleting contents and sources without any valid arguments and falsifying referenced information (e.g., the local law LXXIII of 2008 exists in Hungary and not in Romania). My guess is that you were looking for the Romaninan product "pălincă" and found this page. As I understand, this page is intended solely for the Hungarian drink, and so it is certainly not a good thing that the article "pălincă" redirects here. I think that either the Romanian "pălincă" should have its very own article (so the redirect should be removed) or this article should be extended to include both products. This may also be a valid option as the two products are quite similar. However, even if we decide to do this, you should not delete information about the Hungarian version and falsify data by simply replacing "Hungary" with "Romania". Thank you, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: Please, also don't forget to cite reliable sources, when you extend this or the "pălincă" article, as verifyability is very important for an encyclopedia. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Now IP 85.169.65.196 does the same. Please, 85.169.65.196, instead of edit waring, tell your opinion here. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 14:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Better picture of the bottle

vanthielcommunicatie.nl/wijn/Butella.jpg Maarten van Thiel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.212.84.2 (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pálinka/Archive_2&oldid=1146689174"