Talk:Palinca

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 loose 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

NOTE: Because this discussion concerns expansion of the main Palinka article, it properly belongs on that article's talk page. I have moved this entire discussion to Talk:Pálinka. Further comments should be made there. Thanks. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 05:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]