Jump to content

Talk:Gnocchi

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): PastelPink, Soraya.rizzo, Jessicaliangxo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gnudi

[edit]

Should gnudis be mentioned on this page, or the page for ravioli? Do they deserve their own page? Fench (talk) 02:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gernoki is not pasta

[edit]

Gernoki theys the potatoes nots the pastas--Biebersbro (talk) 06:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gnocchi Video Recipes

[edit]

Hi - I go around to different people's homes and restaurants and film them cooking different dishes for a web site called realmeals.tv. I have an amazing gnocchi recipe which I posted here but the moderators took it down. The link was pretty relevant, and I left the name of my site off the link text. Would anyone in the gnocchi loving community mind if I reposted this?

Hi,
I checked the link you posted, it didn't work, plus the site is clearly a commercial venture. I also looked at your contribution history and found a half a dozen 'similar' :tenuous links to the same site!! The Wikipedia policy on external links is quite clear. Wikipedia:External Links
SallyBoseman 21:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sally -- here's the link again -- maybe it will work for you this time: http://realmeals.tv/pro-meals.aspx?bcpid=370512133&bclid=716053089&bctid=353505719

Also -- here's a letter I posted to Joe Smack's page -- he also removed my links... just food for thought...

Hi, Joe - I film people cooking. Regular people. Professional chefs. Anyone who's got something to cook, I film it. What has emerged is a unique and rapidly growing collection of 3-5 minute video recipes - part cooking show, part reality tv, part documentary. It's comprehensive and pretty unique. The ultimate value is that these recipes will be recorded, tied to these chefs, and shared in perpetuity. I post these videos on a web site called realmeals.tv, which is a pretty new site. Two weeks ago I went out and filmed a 75 year old Jewish grandmother holocaust survivor sharing her matzah ball soup, gefilte fish and other passover recipes. I had used wikipedia to decide how I was going to spell gefilte and matzah on realmeals, and after the films were edited I decided to post links to the videos in the wikipedia pages I'd consulted. I thought that a video recipe could be really useful for people who want to know how to make matzah balls, etc. (not to mention, these recipes are total recipes for lots of Jews of the younger generation). Some people did find the links useful. There were a few hundred clicks to the recipes from wikipedia in the two or three days they were up. Cool, I thought. Not earth shattering numbers or anything, but clearly people found these videos helpful. I see people post recipes in the food related articles all the time. I thought readers would appreciate the opportunity to actually watch stuff being made, instead of just reading about it and looking at pictures. So I posted a few more links. My wife's leg of lamb. My buddy's ridiculously good flank steak. A kid from Jersey City making beer can chicken (very cool dish) and an amazing chef in NYC making gnocchi from scratch. All stuff that really is best communicated in short videos.

Now, was I promoting realmeals? Sure, though I didn't think the links would generate big traffic and I wasn't promoting realmeals directly. My posts didn't say, "visit realmeals and watch someone cook beer can chicken!" Though I have seen posts in food entries that do just that, directing people to big business food sites. The links I posted said, "Watch someone prepare and cook beer can chicken." My assumption was that if someone was interested in that kind of information, presented in that way, they'd click the link. The links aren't intended to promote realmeals -- they're intended to inform people who might be interested in the content... and frankly to help create a fuller and more informative wiki entry. I know that the guidelines say:

"You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines."

I will in the future request that my links be allowing in the talk page, but I don't know how that works or what I can expect in terms of debate... And I'm willing to bet that if you're interested in making gnocchi, the video in question would be potentially the most valuable resource on that page.

So, I guess my concern is about balance. The language in the guidelines says that we "should avoid" linking to sites we're associated with. So it sounds to me like its not an absolute rule. If I'd discovered a cure for cancer, wouldn't it make sense to post it and then let the community decide it was any good? Isn't that how this works? Now my gnocchi film isn't as important as a cure for cancer, though for Italian food lovers it's close -- but I do think that it would definitely prove to be valuable to anyone who types gnocchi into the search field. At what point does the value of the content outweigh the appearance of a conflict of interest in the source? Because in this case, the interests are not conflicted -- they are in alignment. And in this environment should the source even really matter? Because ultimately, if the content is no good, irrelevant, or otherwise undesirable, the community will remove it, right?

OK - thank you for entertaining my rant. I think it's a shame that all the links (even the passover ones) have been deleted, but I appreciate all the work you and others put into this amazing and invaluable web site. For now, I won't post any more links to realmeals without putting it in the discussion channel first. Though others hopefully will... ;-)

It might be a more useful link if it actually went directly to a video of a chef making gnocchi- not to a generic promotional video, then someone making burgers. So I've deleted the link.
Good luck with the site though.
By the way, it's helpful if you sign your posts in the discussion sections with four tildes- (see the top of the Edit page.) Somerandomnerd (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian

[edit]

And how common a dish is this in Brazil? I could see Argentina, due to the large Italian population, but Brazil? Michael 08:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Gnocchi is probably popular in Brazil for pretty much the same reason as Argentina - there are a huge number of Italian Brazilians - AKeen 13:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Shlishkas" should be mentioned somewhere on this page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsruli (talk • contribs) 00:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gnocchi in other countries...

[edit]

Gnocchi (Nocken, Nockerl) are also standard dishes in Southern Germany, Austria, Hungary and Slovenia. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.217.46.133 (talk • contribs)

So should we say everywhere it is eaten or the primary? One could easily add the U.S. to that list. In other words, are we focusing on place of origin or everywhere that food has extended to? Mike 7 07:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Starting a list of everywhere gnocchi is eaten will eventually look a bit ridiculous. Imagine if this was done with pizza. It makes more sense to describe its origins and comment that it has become popular in many places, if not globally. The links on this page to Argentine, Uruguayan and Brazilian cuisine look kind of silly, considering. Jsjoberg 19:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any claim about this kind of noodle originating in Italy (or on the Italian peninsula) would require a reference. This kind of noodle occurs throughout Eastern Europe, where it has multiple names not derived from "gnocci"), and in China. --Una Smith (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

gnocchi

[edit]

Gnocchi is a very popular food, espcially if it has the flavor of the all famous truffle .

Gnocchi's are best when homemade, as is any food. They are delicious small pasta made from flour and ricotta cheese. Once the dough is mixed and is let to rise it is cut into small individual strips. These strips are then processed by hand through a machine. This machine is cranked by hand chopping the dough and curling them into small pieces of pasta. Gnocchi's go best with a nice red meat sauce but can ideally go with any sauce you desire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epapagni (talk • contribs) 06:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, gnocchi is indeed a popular food but, as an Italian, I wouldn't say something like "especially if it has the flavor of the all famous truffle". As reported in the article, gnocchi comes in many different recipes and the truffle is not really necessary as an ingredient for a typical gnocchi-based dish: me, for example, I've usually had gnocchi flavored with fontina cheese melted in a bit of butter, according to the so-called gnocchi alla valdostana ("Valdostan gnocchi") recipe - it is actually one of the many variations to the recipe itself, which often includes other ingredients such as milk, nutmeg, etc. In my case, I'm from Northern Italy so this might be the reason why I've usually had gnocchi alla valdostana rather than other gnocchi-based dishes. I also love gnocchi flavored with tomato sauce or pesto alla genovese ("Genoan pesto", another specialty from Northern Italy) but my favorite recipe is definitely gnocchi alla valdostana, that's the one I've learned to love ever since I was a little kid.--Teno85 (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The real pronunciation for gnocchi

[edit]

Gnocchi is not pronounced /no key/. Gn in Italian sounds like ñ in Spanish or nh in Portuguese. The ñ/nh in señorita/senhorita sounds like the gn in gnocchi.

ICE77 -- 81.104.129.226 21:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugly, inaccurate banners on the article page

[edit]

I am sorry but this template banner {{Original research|date=September 2007}} states there will be a reason for the comment on the talk page. Well there are no "talk" pages in Wikipedia, the non techie name is "discussion" page, thus the banner is not very accurate or verifiable itself and I removed it. Plus I saw one reference, so it is time for it to go.

All such banner belong on the discussion page in my opinion, because while interesting, they are off topic. Nothing personal, but those things are getting to me. --Rcollman (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't remove templates just because you think they're ugly. Wikipedia works on consensus and verifiability. I've re-added the template, as it is still, as of April 2008, unverified and unsourced. GregChant (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be more productive to mention what issues need more evidence, either on the discussion page or with {{fact}} tags rather than tag the whole article. --Macrakis (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In long articles or where the verifiability problem is only in part of the article, sure, but in this article, nothing has been sourced. It would be less productive to tag each sentence with a citation request: the entire article requires verification and citation. GregChant (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing has been sourced, but little is controversial. I certainly agree that our information should be sourced, but banners on content pages (as opposed to discussion pages) are supposed to be for end-users, warning them that they should be aware of problems with the information. I don't see major problems with the information here, though no doubt it can be improved in many ways. --Macrakis (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

Lumpy fresh noodles or dumplings are made throughout the Old World, and have been brought to the New World by many Old World peoples. I propose merging all the existing articles about these noodles, by all their various names. --Una Smith (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might make sense to use the article title Dough knots, which is the literal meaning of several traditional names for this food. --Una Smith (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I use all of these various forms of dumplings or noodles and feel they all have significantly different tastes and uses. Since they are used in such various different ethnic recipes, I feel that the recipes would be seriously compromised by interchanging them. I beleive each has enough uses on it's own to have them listed seperate. (Beverly Johnson) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.20.242 (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Oh my Word! Sorry, for getting a bit passionate about this, but how can you ever make such a suggestion??

I'm from Baden-Württemberg, the German region of which Spätzle is the speciality. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Italian Gnocchi. The receipt is different, it tastes very different, everything is different. Spätzle are very special to all Suabians and it would almost be offensive to our culture to say they would be the same as Gnocchi... --84.161.247.49 (talk) 11:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose the merger - Spätzle and Gnocchi are different in flavor and texture. The backgrounds are different. The preparation is different. An article on Noodles would do well to refer to each of the types of noodles, but merger is not useful. Kd4ttc (talk) 05:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I am affraid that I have to agree with those who are opposing the merge. All this comparison made in the articles are a bit misleading. In the Old World, these dishes are actually quite different, the Gnocch and the Spätzle. They have unique origin and cultural significance, the history is different too, it would be difficult to mention both in the same article.

But you can surelly merge Bryndzové halušky and Strapačky into the Halušky article. Warrington (talk) 12:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • We better remove those merge tags before the entire discussion page becames an opposition list. There’s been indeed enough discussion.

For what it’s worth, I’m opposed to the merge. Bluee Mountain (talk) 12:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tags. As stated, the results of the vote were pretty clear. - AKeen (talk) 01:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

North America?

[edit]

What is the point of the North America section? Is it an advert for a restaurant? It adds nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.115.15 (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Removed section. Pseudomonas(talk) 12:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Ingredients

[edit]
"(...) made from semolina, ordinary wheat flour, flour and egg, flour, egg, and cheese, (...)"

Are you sure that this is what did you want to say? :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.119.252 (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

English translation and "literally"

[edit]

Te article states that the word gnocchi may derive from words meaning "knots of wood" or "knuckles" but no literal translation is given other than in the un-cited gnocchi di pane where a literal translation of "lumps of bread" is given. Is this accurate? Does gnocchi have a "literal" translation, other than that defined in full by this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.29.170.61 (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pasta or not pasta?

[edit]

As far as I know, gnocchi are not considered pasta. But the article classifies them as so.

Also, on first paragraph it's said they are pasta, but on the third they are said to be an alternative to pasta!

--46.25.48.186 (talk) 09:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Technically gnocchi are (generally) potato dumplings. However, at least in the USA lots of people consider it a pasta. To add to the confusion I've seen some stores sell "gnocchi" as a pasta shape, where the product was just pasta shaped like little shells resembling gnocchis. I think the right choice is to clarify that it isn't a pasta, but that it is commonly thought to be one, but I don't know if there is a strong "gnocchis are pasta" camp that might debate this. Fench (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wiktionary's definition specifies that wheat and water are necessary ingredients. What is the definition of pasta, then, if it includes items like gnocchis? Fench (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PastelPink (talk) 08:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Gnoacchi are not pasta. --Mezze stagioni (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove all items that refer to gnocchi as pasta. This is not true. There are similarities between the ingredients in gnocchi and pasta, but process is not the same. Would you say that water and hydrogen peroxide are the same? No you would not, even though they are both made of oxygen and hydrogen. Gnocchi is a dumpling. Such a simple recipe to create something that is beautiful and complex. The process to make pasta versus gnocchi is completely different. Pasta takes the time to develop the gluten in the flour. Gnocchi is the opposite. The art of combining the ingredients together just enough for them to hold, but still create a like pillowy dumpling.AW204 (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Macrakis: and @Northamerica1000: for comment. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 23:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Macrakis: and @Northamerica1000: and @Vaselineeeeeeee: what are the next steps to resolve this dispute? Do I have to file additional items? Please advise. AW204 (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do reliable sources say? That's the Wikipedia standard, not what we think or determine by our own analysis. DMacks (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the source that is directly sourcing that it is a type of pasta, and it does not even seem to mention gnocchi..? Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 15:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the URLs in #New content proposals here on talk-page specifically call it a type of pasta, others seem to make a distinction (that it is only similar-to). DMacks (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above has consisted entirely of individuals' opinions, what we call original research on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and not original research. So let's look for some sources.
The current article includes a footnote to Sabban and Serventi's Pasta: The Story of a Universal Food. Let's see what that very reliable source says:
p. 14: "...medieval cookbooks contained many recipes for lasagne, gnocchi, ravioli, macaroni, vermicelli, and so on, these dishes were not thought to represent a single culinary category"
p. 17 (cited by the article) -- no mention of gnocchi at all!
p. 38 Garzoni (16th century) "classified among the lavori di pasta macaroni, vermicelli, lasagne, tagliatelle, gnocchi, ... and even flaky pastries, pie and tart doughs, and fritters... Although these classification do not correspond to our modern notion of pasta—even though the Italian word still preserves numerous meanings and connotations—... all contained flour mixed with other ingredients in such a way as to create an amalgamated paste, which corresponds to the meaning of the Greek original of the word pasta"
p. 230 lists gnocchi as part of the "realm of pasta" in "medieval Italian cuisine"
So the word "pasta" has historically been used for everything from pastry to macaroni to dough to fritters. And sure enough, even in modern Italian, pasta means not just "shapes made from flour, water, and maybe eggs (possibly stuffed)", but also any dough or pastry. If you want to be precise, you say "pastasciutta".
Let's try some other sources.
Artusi's classic (1891) does not have a category called "pasta" or even "pastasciutta" at all. He lists gnocchi in the section on "Minestre asciutte e di magro" 'Dry and fast-day soups'.
Ada Boni classic (1929) has separate categories for "Paste asciutte", "Riso", "Gnocchi", and "Polenta".
Vincenzo Buonassisi [it]'s Nuovo Codice della Pasta (1991) (cited in this article) includes a chapter on gnocchi, but unlike all his other chapters (e.g. "Paste ripiene"), the chapter title does not include the word "pasta".
Based on this limited sample, it looks like:
Before the 20th century, there wasn't really a category called "pasta". What we call pasta was part of a larger category called "minestre asciutte"—though pasta served in broth is part of a different category, "minestre in brodo", which doesn't necessarily include pasta.
In the 20th century, "pasta asciutta" or "pastasciutta" became the standard name for what we call pasta in English (well, English since about 1975 — before that, we called it "macaroni").
Still, gnocchi is considered to have a family resemblance to pasta.
So, where does that leave this article?
I'd say that it's not appropriate to say in the lead "gnocchi is a kind of pasta", but it might be worth discussing further down in the article the different ways that gnocchi has been categorized. --Macrakis (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sources to present:
there are additional items but to condense what they all say, gnocchi is a dumpling. To lead with a definitive statement that "gnocchi is a kind of pasta" feels just wrong. I agree with Macrakis that it can be discussed later how some people call gnocchi pasta (personally feel they are wrong). If anyone thinks that the lead sentence should not be change to "gnocchi is a dumpling" instead of "gnocchi is a kind of pasta" I welcome the information.
@Macrakis: and @Northamerica1000: and @Vaselineeeeeeee: AW204 (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the references. I have formatted and indented your comment so that it's easier to read. WP:INDENT might be worth reading.
A blog, even by an Italian specialty shop, is a fairly weak source, useful I suppose if we didn't have the original of Artusi, Boni, etc. to consult. But in fact this isn't even an Italian specialty shop, but an American shop specializing in Italian food. Oh, and if you read that page, you'll see that yes, they describe gnocchi as a dumpling, but also as a pasta: "Essentially, gnocchi are a form of dumplings,.... But their light, airy texture and full potato flavor makes them a unique pasta with a long history in classic European cuisine."
Saveur is a pretty good magazine, but I don't think it's a very good source for terminology and history. This particular article isn't even signed, and it makes the peculiar claim that gnocchi were a predecessor of pasta. --Macrakis (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I personally find it strange to call it a dumpling since it is not filled with anything, but given it is a hybrid between potato and flour, it is not your typical kind of pasta. I trust the judgement of Macrakis who has years of experience in this topic here. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 01:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your vote of confidence! I'm just trying to see what reliable sources say...!
Many kinds of dumpling don't have fillings. See the OED or the Oxford Companion to Food (OCF).
Part of the confusion here is that some kinds of gnocchi are made with pasta dough (trofie, strangulapreti), and because the names overlap: according to the OCF, in Padua, both gnocchi and pasta are still called "macaroni".... Some gnocchi are boiled like pasta, others are baked.
So like many categories, you can't really say definitively that gnocchi are or aren't pasta, just that some kinds have some common characteristics. --Macrakis (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. Perhaps you can make a WP:BOLD edit when you're ready and we can discuss if the changes are appropriate (which they probably will). Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have done so, thanks. Does ref #6 "Pasta: The Story of a Universal Food" even mention gnocchi on page 17 because I'm not seeing it? Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I said above: "p. 17 (cited by the article) -- no mention of gnocchi at all!". I have replaced "17" with "unknown" for now, because I know that that book says exactly these things elsewhere -- perhaps you could correct the page number and the page links? --Macrakis (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, I missed that! Okay, I realized I could search within the book, so I corrected the page number to page 42. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 23:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New content proposals

[edit]
  • Gnocchi Outline

Below is the outline of what we hope to add to the Gnocchi Wikipage, as well as resources we hope to use in order to contribute accurate information.

  • History

The culture significance of this food will be discussed, as well as its traditional and cultural significance.

  • Ingredients

Ingredients added will be discussed, as well as different ingredients used in variations of this food will also be discussed.

  • Manufacturing

Machinery used, or techniques used in order to preserve this food. In what conditions or locations this food is produced.

  • Storage

A brief explanation on packaging techniques, and what additions are made in order to help preserve this food.

  • References

We plan to use the following reference:


Article: When traditions become innovations and innovations become traditions in everyday food pedagogies Author: Benny, Helen Journal: Australian journal of adult learning ISSN: 1443-1394 Date: 11/01/2012 Volume: 52 Issue: 3 Page: 595 --- Article: The geography of the Italian pasta, Author: Alexander, David,Journal: The Professional geographer,Date: 08/01/2000,Volume: 52,Issue: 3,Page: 553 --- Sofi, Francesco, et al. "Identification of Change-Points in the Relationship between Food Groups in the Mediterranean Diet and overall Mortality: An ‘a Posteriori’ Approach." European Journal of Nutrition 51.2 (2012): 167-72. Web.

Luisi, Maria Luisa Eliana, et al. "Efficacy of a Nutritional Education Program to Improve Diet in Patients Attending a Cardiac Rehabilitation Program: Outcomes of a One-Year Follow-Up." Internal and Emergency Medicine 10.6 (2015): 671-6. Web.

The First European Conference on Sensory Science of Food and Beverages: “A Sense of Identity”, Food Quality and Preference, Volume 17, Issues 1–2, January–March 2006, Pages 43–52, PastelPink (talk) 08:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to use technical references

[edit]

Some recent content has included extracts from various technical manuals or patents about particular approaches to making or preserving gnocchi. They were added without any indication of whether these particular techniques were common or widespread, or if they were just a particular manufacturer's approach. After all, most patents are never put into practice. I have removed this content. --Macrakis (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very confusing language

[edit]

The following makes absolutely no sense to me: "A study conducted with the potato puree showed that, between two samples analyzed, the product which engaged in dual lower pressure treatments resulted in the most suitable production of gnocchi in terms of physicochemical and textural properties."

What is this line even trying to say? And what benefit is there to the reader? I propose this is removed.

--86.164.58.92 (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shlishkas

[edit]

Ashkenazik Jewish "Shlishkas" are literally gnocchi and sold labeled as such.

Drsruli (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are gnocchi pasta?

[edit]

There is some discussion of this question above under #Pasta or not pasta?, but it seems this didn't resolve the dispute. The article still contradicts itself, the lead saying gnocchi are "an alternative to (...) pasta" and the "Origin" section saying they have been "a traditional type of Italian pasta since Roman times". The article is also included in Category:Types of pasta and Category:Pasta dishes. The only citation saying they are a type of pasta is:

  • Serventi, Silvano; Sabban, Françoise (2002). Pasta: The Story of a Universal Food. Translated by Shugaar, Antony. New York: Columbia University Press. pp. 42. ISBN 0-231-12442-2.

First of all, it says page 42, but links to page 14, and it seems the latter is correct, as 14 mentions gnocchi, but page 42 does not. The quote from page 14 is: "It is not until the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries that sources begin to mention specific pasta products by name—seventeen of them, according to a recent inventory, certain of which are still familiar today. But even though medieval cookbooks contained many recipes for lasagne, gnocchi, ravioli, macaroni, vermicelli, and so on, these dishes were not thought to represent a single culinary category." This implies gnocchi are pasta. However, other sources listed in #Pasta or not pasta? treat them as separate from pasta.

Note that neither page 14 nor page 42 actually supports the claim that they have existed "since Roman times". Basically, the entire bit about the Ancient Roman origins of gnocchi is without any sources. Neither the book nor the BBC article support any of the claims made. The quote, also from page 14, is: "Bruno Laurioux reexamined and expanded Sereni’s work, leading to the hypothesis that fresh pasta, in the form of rolled-out sheets called lasagne, descends directly from the Greco-Roman lagana, while dried, stringlike pasta, long or short, according to present-day terminology, made in a radically different manner was borrowed from the Arab world and spread throughout the Mediterranean basin." Presumably this excludes gnocchi, which are not rolled out into a sheet.

Not all of these are reliable sources, but they may be useful in determining what public opinion actually is:

Inconclusive. Perhaps we should "teach the controversy" by having a sentence saying that gnocchi may or may not be considered pasta, depending on the source. But we still need to decide whether to include them in the pasta categories. Not including them is arguably a neutral option: while including them definitively states they are pasta, the fact that they are not included does not necessarily imply they are not pasta, as they may have been left out for a different reason. I should state at this point that my own opinion is that they are not pasta, so I am not really neutral here.

Here is a blog saying explicitly: "Some believe that gnocchi is a type of pasta, whereas others believe it is a form of potato dumpling." Unfortunately, this is not a reliable source.

Would anyone support changing "a traditional type of Italian pasta since Roman times" to "a traditional Italian dish since Roman times", and removing the pasta categories? Then maybe we can add a sentence about the controversy elsewhere in the article. Though I wouldn't mind not mentioning it at all. Un assiolo (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gnocchi&oldid=1238985239"