Talk:Tushonka

Comment
Prosperity? a u kidding me? i'm from Russia and it was NOT the symbol of prosperity, ov povetry yes. Author, you better should learn history/ 13:30, 6 March 2012‎ 89.222.164.64 (talk)‎

Braising vs. Stewing
I'm sorry, I should pose this question for native English speakers who are versed in cooking. The very beginning of the article traces the name of the dish to braising, while it is definitely stewing that takes place — simmering/low heat cooking with all ingredients fully submerged. The name of the dish is also explained as stewed meat here and in various other places. I'm pretty sure this is correct, but I'm wary of just changing it because I'm still a bit fuzzy on what exactly braising is and is not, in different contexts. Going by multiple recipes and the wiki article, it seems that braising is cooking foods (mostly meat) which are partially submerged in liquid (while optionally basting the dish now and then, maybe?), but I have a feeling it's broader than that. EDIT: Forgot to log in. AyeBraine (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation
I am a Russian-English translator and a Russian copyeditor, with a Russian MA in Journalism. I am not the best at it, nor is it necessary to mention this, but it won't hurt my case, either.

For me, it is quite intuitively obvious that "тушёнка" is pronounced "tushonka", not "tushyonka". But there is also a clear-cut linguistic reason for this: in this case, Ё is positioned after a hushing sound, Ш (Sh), which is always hard in Russian (if you try to make it soft, you get a different letter, Щ - the one with the lil' tail). This is a reason why schoolchildren have to be religiously taught to only write И ('ee') after Ж and Ш (Zh, Sh) — because the vowel sounds unmistakably like Ы instead, a sound that only follows hard consonants. Likewise, in тушёнка the letter Ё cannot be pronounced in a soft manner (yo) in Russian, like in ЁЛКА or МЁРТВЫЙ; it invariably mutates into a firm "O".

That's why all sources that actually were in contact with Russians and discussed this dish with natives, easily lean towards "tushonka" — because that's exactly how it sounds in proper Russian. AyeBraine (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2020 (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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No move. By all indications "Tushonka" is the common name in English sources. Cúchullain t/ c 21:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Tushonka → Tushyonka – It is called "Тушёнка" and according to WP:RUS, 'ё' letter should be romanized as 'yo'. Teyandee (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * But the sole English source for the article uses "tushonka". —  AjaxSmack   05:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose- GBooks 800:1 in favour of imperfect English spelling. Yes ё should be yo, but unfortunately this spelling already got lodged in English. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I'm not sure that a sole English source can be taken to establish a common name, not even by stretching the definition to breaking point.  However, In ictu oculi has a more valid point, particularly as the one source using Tushyonka appears to be a lady with the unfortunate name of Canned meat Vanyok (poor bugger!).  It does appear that there are sufficient sources in English to establish that Tushonka is the only name used for this appetising looking titbit.  Skinsmoke (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 *  Support  if the Russian naming guide has it that way, then do it and don't use random internet sources. But the naming guide seems to be restricted to place and person names. Pedro Gonzalez-Irusta (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Russian naming guide also specifically doesn't apply when there is an established English name. Hence we have articles at Moscow not Moskva, and Mikhail Gorbachev not Mikhail Gorbachyov.  Skinsmoke (talk) 05:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. The whole argument is built on the false premise that the name of this dish is an English word (and especially an "established" English word—c'mon, 800 unrefined ghits is hardly an indicator of a word being "established"!). It simply is not (but please, do prove me wrong by citing an English dictionary which includes it). What it really is a mere transliteration of a Russian word, and as many here probably know, there are multiple ways to transliterate Russian (the name of this particular dish, for example, can be rendered as "tushyonka", "tushonka", "tushenka", "tushionka", "tushënka", and probably in other ways I'm forgetting). The choice of the transliteration system is simply a matter of style (not that different from choosing whether British or American spelling should be used, whether on not to use a serial comma, or how to space dashes), and the matters of style are regulated not by WP:RS, but by the appropriate style guides. For transliteration of Russian, the applicable guideline is WP:RUS (which is not, by the way, limited to place and person names), using which would result in "tushyonka". This is the spelling which should be used at least until a different spelling enters at least one major English dictionary. Choosing the method of transliteration based on ghits is just as much a fool's errand as deciding whether a particular date is more commonly rendered by "reliable sources" in the mdy or dmy format! Additionally, why does this article even have to be under a transliterated name? "Stewed meat" is a perfectly viable translation, why not use that? The side benefit of this approach would be having a place where stewed meats of various cultures can be discussed.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 11, 2013; 14:42 (UTC)
 * Comment: No, I'm afraid it isn't just a matter of transliterating.  The stuff was produced in huge quantities in the United States in World War II for "export" to the Soviet Union, so earning a name in (at least) American English.  Personally, I would much prefer to use the "correct" tushyonka, but the evidence suggests there is an established, if little-used, English word for the stuff, and that that word is tushonka.  If you bother to look at any of those Google hits, you will see that the name even lives on in American online shopping today.  It is also used in Life magazine.  Skinsmoke (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A great number of transliterated Russian words are used in the English-language published works (with many having way more than the meager 800 hits), but it doesn't mean they are actual English words. Unlike borscht or kvass, which are included into every dictionary worth its salt, "tushonka" is not, which is a sure sign that's it's merely a transliteration. And that brings us back to the original point—since transliteration choice is a style choice, counting ghits is a pointless endeavor, especially when the number of hits is so small. We shouldn't be claiming something is an English word when it is not!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 11, 2013; 16:10 (UTC)
 * Comment: You can insist all you want, but the evidence is pretty plain that tushonka was firmly established in the war in American English, and you will no doubt still be able to find a number of people in Ohio who remember producing tushonka in the packing plants.  The other Google Books hits indicate that the word continues to be used to this day.  It's not about "counting Google hits"; it's about looking at those Google hits and examining how the word is used, and how authoritative the sources are.  Mainstream American magazines, international agreements signed by the United States government, food quality directives issued by the United States government, reports of United States Senate subcommittees, cookery books published in English speaking countries, novels published in English speaking countries, and books on the history of the United States all attest that the word exists in the English language.  Against this is your favoured tushyonka, which is not mentioned anywhere in English language publications—ever.  Skinsmoke (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, this argument strongly reminds me the disaster currently still going strong on Talk:Star Trek into Darkness—that is exactly what happens when editors start deciding the matters of style based on the "analysis of reliable sources"! A word is either an English loanword or it is not, and it not a loanword until it is included into an English dictionary and marked as such. Yet by your logic, it seems that such words as "baranina", "kholodets", or "okroshka" should also be considered "English". I stand unconvinced. P.S. As for my "favored" variant, I'd actually prefer this article to be under "stewed meat", with various transliterations given in italics, as they should be.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 11, 2013; 16:38 (UTC)
 * I further checked JSTOR for how this word ("tushonka") is being used. There are only six publications mentioning it (I can provide a list to those interested in seeing it), and in every case the word is either italicized, or capitalized, or both. In every case there is also some kind of clarification attached (with "canned stew meat" being the common theme). Now, that the word is being italicized (and clarified) is a sure indication that it is a transliteration, whereas the capitalized version refers only to the war effort and is used more in a sense of a "brand name" (so to speak) rather than the name of the general concept. Now, if this article were specifically about the role of "Tushonka" in the war effort, it'd be perfectly OK to spell it like that (and to capitalize it throughout the text—after all, that's what the sources do!), but what we really have here is an article about a Russian dish (very common outside the scope of the war effort theme), which has very little coverage in the English-language sources once you take the war-related materials out. It's just not right to take the name used as a brand in a very specific context and to transfer it to the concept as a whole.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 11, 2013; 17:10 (UTC)
 * Comment: Clearly you haven't even bothered to look at the Google Books results that In ictu oculi referred to.  Check them out here.  Skinsmoke (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.