Jump to content

Talk:Pierogi/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Chicago?

Really?? I'm surprised. I'm from Chicago (ancestral background, if you will, rural IL northwest of Chicago) and first heard of pierogies from my old boyfriend (who was from Youngstown, OH). He says they're VERY well known in the Youngstown/Cleveland area. While they may be available in Chicago (heck, they're even available [frozen in a huge plastic bag] at various Costco locations in Northern Virginia, where I currently reside), I wouldn't by any means consider them (or a local/American version of them, rather) to be a traditional Chicago-area dish, and I certainly wouldn't assume that a large percentage of Chicagoans (native or otherwise) have heard of them. I KNOW they're very common in NE Ohio and the part of PA that abuts it.. I wouldn't be surprised if they're very common in a place like, say, NE PA (Scranton, etc.), as well. But I'd never seen them strongly associated with Chicago until reading this article. It's possible that there are some historical connections, but they're tenuous compared to the NE Ohio, etc. etc. - pierogi connections.

As someone who's originally from Chicago, I don't think I've ever run into someone who didn't know what pierogi are (unless they're not from the area). Chicago has the largest Polish-American population in the US and I've seen local programing, whether it's on the local news station or PBS, about various ethnic foods like pierogi. To live in Chicago for a longer period of time and not know what pierogi are you honestly must be living under a rock, I mean I've even seen billboard ads for them on the tri-state. --198.229.215.131 (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I still think pierogies are FAR more omnipresent in NE Ohio, etc. than in Chicago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.17.38 (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Names

Let's list the names in all the languages. Please add what you know.

table

master table of East European dumplings
Language singular plural diminutive plural boiled plural ears
Belarusian пiрог, pirog пiрагi, pirahi пiражкi, pirazhki варэнiкi, vareniki
Czech
Latvian pīrāgs pīrāgi pīrādziņi vareņiki pelmeņi
Polish pieróg pierogi pierożki pierogi uszka
Russian пирог, pirog пироги, pirogi пирожки, pirozhki see "ears" вареники, vareniki (with anything but meat); пельмени, piel'meni (with meat only)
Slovak pirohy
Ukrainian пиріг, pyrih пироги, pyrohy пиріжки, pyrizhky вареники, varenyky (в)ушка, (v)ushka

name talk

Hmmm, do вареники also fit in this table? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 21:58, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

In my genuine Russian opinion what shown on the pictures in this article is exactly vareniki, and in no way it is pirogi (pirozhki/piroshki). Pirogi in Russian is a plural for pirog, which is literally a pie. Here is the picture for pirog:
http://s006.radikal.ru/i214/1010/1d/84a03da96ba4.jpg
Pirozhki/piroshki are smaller versions of pirogi, very similar to buns. Here is the picture of baked piroshki:
http://c.foto.radikal.ru/0605/2bac56809446.jpg
And here is the picture of fried piroshki:
http://otvetin.ru/uploads/posts/2010-01/1263381746_zharenye-pirozhki.jpg
Please note that in Russia piroshki are NEVER EVER boiled! There is no such instance as boiled piroshki.
So all in all I think this article in Wikipedia is completely and totally WRONG or it is possible that in the English world they indeed consider vareniki with shkvarky and sour cream to be piroshki/pirogi. Then whoever introduced that concept into English was totally wrong. I can say that at least in California I've never seen anyone trying to sell vareniki (as shown in this article) as piroshki. All piroshki I could find in California were indeed piroshki (as in the pictures I gave above). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spirit-RC (talk • contribs) 02:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
They do if they're served up with plenty of shkvarky and sour cream! Anyone feel like merging Varenyky and Vareniki? Should Plautdietsch be added to the table? —Michael Z. 22:49, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)
Do they have their p-dumplings as well? Also, I was also thinking of adding the column for the tortellini-shaped thingies (uszka, pielmieni and such). I believe they fit into the same category, although adding this column would probably lead us to prepare a list of all the dumplings in the world... [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 00:27, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
Mennonites in Manitoba make "vreneki" and "pryshki" (I'll find out how to spell that, although I understand Plautdietsch is only spoken). This stuff is so well known in these parts, that Hong Kong-style dim sum houses in Winnipeg describe some of their dishes as "Chinese perogies" on the menu.
They probably learned this from those "Prairie Ukrainians". See Glendon, Alberta in the article.Pustelnik 22:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
My Ukrainian mother only makes vushka (or ushka) with mushrooms to put into the Christmas borshch. Who else makes them?
Let's stick to the ones of East European origin here for now, but maybe dumplings could use a list of links.
—Michael Z. 01:50, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)
Who makes them? I do! [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 06:03, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Czechs and slovaks don't have a word for them because they don't eat them. I tried to find pierogies in the czech republic for a whole near with no success. I'm removing references to czechs and slovaks from the article. -- TheMightyQuill 21:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No way, I was in Slovakia half a year ago, I ate pierogi... I don't remember name of them exactly, it was something like "pirohy", but it could be something like "kluski", but i have eaten them in restaurant, and i'm sure that there were pierogi :) Piotrek91 09:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
pyrohi is the czech term i think. 130.179.113.37 20:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

-- Its called Pirohy in Slovak and boy you could not been more wrong about Slovaks not eating them. Mainly popular in eastern parts of Slovakia and for a very long time! Stonufka 12:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It ma sound radical but I think the word's origin is here read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burek —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.70.198 (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

is this the same? regional variation and identification

Latvia

I entered correct latvian names, but I`m not sure for last two - I don`t think that there is such latvian food, so I added names of russian foods popular in Latvia. Also I`m suspicios that this food maybe isn`t latvaian food called pīrāgi, but other food that has similar name in other languages, because picture in article surely shows something else and dumpling also is something else, please look here http://elviss.bol.ucla.edu/piragi/ or search in google image search for piragi and make sure that it is same food -- Xil - talk 04:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

That looks more like the the Russian pirozhki. Rmhermen 03:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Pīrāgi is something like bread with meat, made out of leaven dough. These in pictures look like type of ordinary pelmeni. That, fact that pīrāgi are not served with soup and also fact that Latvian dumplings, called klimpas are served in soup made me thought that maybe you are mistaking pie for dumpling -- Xil/talk 23:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

As a native speaker I can confirm that pīrāgi (plural, singular pīrāgs) (more commonly used in diminutive form pīrādziņi) are a kind of leavened yeast dough savoury buns comparable in weight with a hot cross bun or a similar item(elongated or more often elongated and bent into crescent) filled with either chopped streaky bacon with or without addition of onions or with cooked cabbage or sauerkraut. (In some regions with different ethnic background other fillings are also popular)Traditionally they were eaten on festivities, as they are made from whear flour, that was saved for special occasions, everyday breads being made from rye. Nowadays they are sold as a savoury snack in most bakeries every day, but are particulary popular around Christmas and Midsummer festival (Līgo or Jāņi). The dish discussed in this article however is pelmeņi and/or vareņiki, both dishes of Slavic origin, but reasonably popular in Latvia. Pelmeņi are small (most often 4-5 cm in diameter) ravioli or tortellini like products that consist of minced meat filling wrapped in rather bland pastry, they are mostly boiled in salted water or broth, drained and served with sour cream or similar consistency condiments, sometimes fried or baked or incorporated in soups. Vareņiki is a very similar dish that is filled with cottage cheese or variety of sweet or savoury vegetarian fillings, served in a similar way. Both of those foods nowadays are usually ready made and found frozen in most shops. Vareņiki is usually consumed by a rather small circle of customers that have a particular liking on them, however pelmeņi have gained a wast popularity among all society, especially families with children and a low income and university students living in dorms, as they are cheap (the meat used might be very low grade, or might contain offal or meat substitutes), very fast and easy to prepare (frozen pelmeņi can be cooked by boiling in less than 20 minutes) and tend to be palatable even if the quality is low and they appeal even to fussy eaters. Klimpas (mentioned earlier in this discussion) in Latvia mean dumplings without any filling, made from dough that might contain mashed potatoes or macerated bread in attition to flour and eggs, or be completely bland. They are always boiled and served in a sweet or savoury soup or broth. pictures: Pīrāgi: http://www.arn.lv/xml/2829/big/Piradzins-Speka-130(130-1-3)[1].jpg Pelmeņi: http://www.artstudio.lv/fotoreceptes/pelmeni%20(21).JPG Vareņiki: http://img.apollo.lv/upload/2011-09-29/251262/1317279421_1.jpg Klimpas (in a blueberry soup): http://i3.tiesraides.lv/292x218/pictures/2011-09-17/2011-09-17_mellenu_klimpu_zupa.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.201.73.139 (talk) 11:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Russian Pirozhki

In my mind, this Russian bun is completely different, not a dumpling at all, as are all the other variants discussed here. I think it should have its own article, and this pierogi article should say something like "not to be confused with Russian pirozhki".--BillFlis 01:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree, would clear up much confustion. Kevlar67 (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


yeah, I was looking for an article on the filled food item more akin to a savory filled doughnut...in San Francisco, they are always

deep-fried, but in other places like Los Angeles (where I am now), it's more like pastry dough,baked. I was wondering what the regional origins of the frying vs. baking were.76.175.171.25 (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Morningwindow

Poland

Quark (food) filling

Pierogi in Poland contain mainly quark, rather than cheese. The article Cheese doesn't mention Quark (food). I would replace cheese by quark in "Pierogi", is it O.K.? (unsigned)

Sure! Though citations are cool, if you can add some... - Akb4 22:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

In Poland, pierogi ruskie are the most popular, not the ones with cabbage and mushrooms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.138.252 (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Polish Leniwe pierogi

Leniwe pierogi in Poland aren't pierogi. Could someone explain it in the article? Xx236 13:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Here you have a photo of pierogi leniwe --> Leniwe pierogi. Why they are so called - I don't know ;) They are more similar to kopytka. Pierogi leniwe means lazy pierogi. Piotrek91 21:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Chinese Jiaozi Variations

On the article for Jiaozi, gyoza and momo are both listed as variations of the Chinese jiaozi and, therefore, there inclusion here as separate items may not be necessary.

I have removed gyoza since I lived in Japan and am certain of the fact that it is not a different dish, but a subtle variation of the same dish.

What I can't seem to decide is if momo should be listed separately. It is listed as a Nepalese variation of the Chinese jiaozi on the article for jiaozi, but it also has its own article and at least looks different.

Can anyone from that area confirm that? If not, what would you suggest? 賢進学 「Kenshin Manabu」 (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Taxonomy

Since we at this classification thing, I suggest to put a complete taxonomy in place first; kinda sorta like in phonetics for consonants. Let's classify dough by a reasoable set of traits and make a really big table. The first step is to define the set of significant traits. For starters:

  • Type of flour
  • Type of dough/batter
  • Type of filling
  • Way of filling
    • Inmixed
    • Wrapped
      • Semi-wrapped
      • Way of wrapping (folded/rolled/squeezed, etc.)
    • On top
    • Layered
  • Shape
  • Size
  • Treatment/preparation
  • Consumption
  • Health risks
  • ...

Mikkalai 07:23, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


shape

the article says crescent shaped, but really they are more or less semi-circular in my experience. Chinese dumplings often seem crescent shaped, but pierogi that I've had are made by folding a circle in half over the filling. - Akb4 22:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

-- Flat dough is cut circular shape using a cup or glass and after filling is added its folded over to enclose the whole thing and than droped in to boiling water. Stonufka 12:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Pyrohy

In this article, Ukrainian cuisine, it states that pyrohy is different than the definition of perogies in this article. It seems to be a dessert type dumpling, and varenyky seems to be what this article describes. Pyrohy, however, forwards to this page. Varenyky does not. --Kmsiever 04:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

See below, it's a Canadian Ukrainian vs. Standard Ukrainian thing. Kevlar67 (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

The first sentence says they are "Ukrainian filled dumplings." How exactly are they Ukrainian if just below it says that their origin is untraceable? This seems very POV to me seeing as this is a common food in many other European countries. JRWalko 20:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

grammars will being incorrects?

By the 1960s, pierogi were a common supermarket item in the frozen food aisles in parts of the United States and Canada. Pierogis maintain their place in the grocery aisles to this day.

someone who understands english please tell me what form is correct... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.250.23.2 (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Undid revision 157778056 by 75.108.24.83

I reverted the page back to its prior incarnation to get rid of the apparent clamor about pirogi being Polish (as opposed to "Slavic") and its bizarre reference to communists. If pirogi are more accurately described as "Polish" rather than "Slavic," then change the words to reflect this fact; the previous commentary ("communists" et al.) does not belong on this page. 71.215.130.85 04:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Bosterson

Clean up article

This article is a mess. Seriously. Has anyone tried reading it start-to-finish? It lists many things twice or more, and some information is conflicting itself (origin of the name). 24.8.142.67 06:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)JakubH

ok, I just took a stab at it. I'd say our big remaining problem is that the Russian/Ukrainian distinctions are very confusing. I can't figure out if a vareniki and a pierogi are the same thing or not. If they are, why do Ukrainians in North America use the term pierogi? -- Akb4 23:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
They are the same thing but North American Ukrainians speak a particular dialect of Ukrainian influnced by Polish, which is why they called them пироги, pyrohy. This was too hard for English-speakers to say (when you roll the "r" properly is sounds like ped-a-hay), so they created an English word for them, perogy which is what the overwhealming majority of English speakers in Canada know them as, and how the big grocery chains sell them. Now unfortunately perogy the word refers to a different food in Standard Ukrainian and Russian. But this article isn't about that. Kevlar67 (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Revisting the name issue

Essentially, this is what I think. In Canada, in English this food is most often spelled Perogy / Perogies. That's how the big manufactures and retailers sell them (e.g. Cheemo, Safeway, M&M Meat Shops, Sobey's, Superstore, etc.) and many of those companies operate in the US as well, so I don't think it's a stretch to say they probably use that spelling there too. This this is the English WP, that spelling should be the title, as unatural as it looks to speakers of slavic languages. The English word perogy includes uk /ru Vareniki. They are the same food called by two different words, and that article should be merged here. WP cataglouges things, wiktionary catalouges words, so all the rival spellings could get their own Wikitionary entry, but not a WP article. There could be a seperate article created for the baked dish called perogi in Russian, becuase it is a seperate food, not just a spelling variant. Kevlar67 (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Since no one has given me any good reasons against, I will shortly merge Vareniki here, and rename it perogy. Kevlar67 (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
No, no! See my comments below (Ukrainian varenyky)! --Pkravchenko (talk) 12:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

revisting table idea

Language Singular Plural
American English [1] pierogy pierogies
Belarusan варэнiк (varenik) варэнiкi (vareniki)
Canadian English [2], [3] perogy perogies
Canadian French [4] perogie perogies
Hungarian derelye
Latvian pīrāgs pīrāgi, vareņiki
Polish pieróg pierogi
Russian варе́ник (varenik) варе́ники (vareniki)
Ukrainian (standard) варе́ник (varenyk) варе́ники (varenyky)
Ukrainian (diaspora) пирог (pyroh) пироги (pyrohy)
Slovak?
Carpatho-Ruthenian пирога (pyroha) пироги (pyrohy)
Yiddish pirogen, piroshke

Once this table is a little more filled out I think it should go in the article. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 15:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You cannot make generalisation about the Ukrainian diaspora (see my comments - Ukrainian varenyky below) --Pkravchenko (talk) 12:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I have added a space for Slovak, and have added what I have called "Carpatho-Ruthenian" which may very well be what was meant by diaspora Ukranian. Also, the singular in -a may either be dialect or a back-formation.

Pot Stickers

They look like pot stickers. Are they similar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.35.214 (talk) 07:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Very. 75.155.81.228 (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
In fact it says so in the article. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 15:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheemo

I do believe that Cheemo is an Albertan company owned by Heritage Frozen Foods Ltd, and not as this article implies American 24.65.42.159 (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The whole American bit is a bit advertise-y...anyone else wanna stab at it? Namely, I'm having trouble turning up anything solid about Paula Newby-Fraser and perogies as a sports food. 99.236.187.231 (talk) 04:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

country of origin

Why does it say Poland under the picture as country of origin? I thought that it was already established that they originated in all Eastern Europe genrally and likely further to the East of Poland and not specifically in any country. I think that country of origin should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mykyta (talk • contribs) 02:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Pierogi (derelye) in Hungary

In the Hungary section we read: "Derelye is consumed primarily as a festive food for special occasions such as weddings. It was brought to Hungary by the merchant Andras Perl for his wedding with his wife Katalin in 1764. The Banki family, Katalin`s family, was so moved by the pierogi that now, pierogi are common at most Hungarian weddings." This unverified piece is a gradual development of the text originally added on June 7, 2006: [5]. The original text is a verbatim reproduction of the section on Hungary on pieroguys.com. This is the only place on the web where I can find Andras Perl and Katalin Banki in the pierogi (derelye) context (other than that they figure as co-authors in respectable scientific articles). Does anyone have any insights on (a) derelye being used as a wedding dish and (b) on the piece of folklore about Andras Perl and Katalin Banki in the 18th century? If not, I am inclined to delete this whole story and leave only the dry food facts about derelye. --Zlerman (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainian Varenyky

Firstly, I would object to varenyky being merged into pierogi, as pierogi is a word that is confused with pyrohy, the Ukrainian-Russian version of a pie. (What confuses things is the the cyrillic letter Г is pronounced and transliterated as H into English if it relates to a Ukrainian word, and pronounced and transliterated as G into English if it is from a Russian word.) So the Russian transliteration for Пирог would be pirog (singular) and pirogi (plural).

Secondly, the Ukrainian diaspora in Australia (to the best of my knowledge) have never used pierogi to describe the Ukrainian version of dumplings — they are varenyky. I think that this would be the majority case in Ukraine as well. Any baked pie type pastries have always been pyrohy. I grant that regional dialectical variations exist, including those which have influenced the use of the word pierogi in America/Canada. But please do be careful in projecting an American-centric view on the English wikipedia site. Just because some (not all) Ukrainian-Americans use the term pirogi or pierogi, does not necessarily mean that the people in Ukraine or Russia (and the rest of the world) do. If you merge Ukrainian-Russian varenyky into pierogi, what about all the other versions of dumplings: Kalduny, Manti (dumpling), Mandu (dumpling), Jiaozi?

The English article on "pierogi" has unfortunately created a lot of confusion in terms of the interwiki links. Although the above page points to the Russian page Пирог (which is a pie), the Russian page prefers to point to the Polish page on Pieróg which is the real Ukrainian or Russian pyrih (a pie), rather thant the Polish page on Pierogi — which is what this page is about. Unfortunately, most of the other page on the other countries' pages similarly reinforce this confusion, as they have mostly copied the text from the English page and are all talking about the Polish/Ukrainian-American pierogi (dumplings), not pyrohy or Пирог (pirog) (don't blame me for the confusing situation!).

However, the article on pierogi does correctly link to to Ukrainian varenyky in its interwiki column on the left — despite there being a separate page on the English page on varenyky! No wonder people are confused!

Take a look at both the Russian wiki page on вареники and the Ukrainian page on вареники and you will see that they look the same as the Polish 'pierogi'. Alternatively, see the Russian page on пирог (pirog) to see that it is linked to the English pie.

To try to help sort out the confusion, at least in terms of the Ukrainian-Russian situation, I submit the following — there are 3 separate items that should not be confused with each other:

  1. Pyrih (Ukrainian: пиріг — singular) — the closest English equivalent is pie or pasty. Just as there are thousands of different pies, the same is true for pyrihy (plural) — they can be sweet (eg. with cheese, apple, plums) or savoury (with meat, mixed vegetables etc.) Importantly, they are made from pastry (with yeast) that is baked. Just as with pies, they can be of any size. Flat or open versions could be seen as being equivalent to a tart or 'squares'.
  2. Pyrizhok (Ukrainian: пиріжок — singular) — what distinguishes pyrizhky (plural) is that they are a 'finger-food' version of a small pyrih. Again, they are baked pastry (usually with yeast, though they can also be either deep-fried or pan-fried, especially if they are with un-yeasted dough) and can have a variety of fillings: meat, potatoes, cabbage etc. The closest English equivalent (but not exact equivalent) would be a pasty, though pyrizhky are not always pinched together along the edges and are always small enough to be eaten with only one hand.
  3. Varenyky — (Ukrainian: вареники — plural) — these are totally different to the other two! They are dumplings — un-yeasted dough that is usaually boiled. Again they can have any sort of filling, including sweet (eg. cheese cherries), or savoury (sour cabbage, meat with vermicelli noodles etc.).

In summary — a) leave the page as it is, and b) allow Ukrainians and Russians to have a separate pages on both vareniki and pyrih which describe their specific foods. --Pkravchenko (talk) 11:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Rationale

Zlerman kindly posted this on my talk and I am quoting and answering him here. Kjaer (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

1) Pierogi are defined as dumplings in the lead. When the article says that the origin is unknown, it refers specifically to the origin of pierogi as such. Yes, they are Slavic, but it is not known if they are Polish, Belarusian, Lithuanian, etc. So, in my opinion, we can simply stay with "Pierogi are of unknown origin" without bringing in the dumplings. Furthermore, the adverb "ultimately" does not seem to belong here, with our without dumplings.

2) I agree that it is unnecessary to say that the word pierogi is Slavic.

3) I took out Ruthenes because, if you look in the corresponding article Ruthenians, you will see that they are defined as Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Belarusians, etc. -- peoples who are already mentioned specifically. Second, the peoples listed have articles with their own national cuisines; there is no article with "Ruthene cuisine" on Wikipedia. Finally, the article Ruthenians says in the first sentence that this "is a culturally loaded term and has different meanings according to the context in which it is used". It seems to me that it is better not to include such an ambiguous term in the context of pierogi. I notice that you have now changed the link to Rusyns, which exists alongside Ruthenians, but this I think will only compound the average reader's confusion, without affecting the core of my argument.

4) In line with the spirit of your editing, I tried to put all the semi-circular Slavic dumplings together. That's why I moved vareniki to follow pelmeni and kalduny. Then come the non-Slavic European dumplings of the same shape (ravioli, tortellini, kreplach). And finally the rest of the world, where the dumplings have a different shape (mainly round pockets of dough).

I had thought a lot about the proper wording of this section before making the changes, and I honestly think that the proposed version has a more logical flow. Please consider my comments. If you agree, then all's well. If you agree partially, let's discuss it -- here or on the talk page. I would like to work out a version acceptable to both of us. Best, --Zlerman (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your considered response.

1) I suppose we mean different things by origin. That pirohi are Slavic dumplings is simply obvious given their own separate but cognate names, it is obvious that they are a common slavic phenomenon (i.e., a phenomenon that predates the separation into Polish, Ukranian, etc.) So, if you take origin to mean in what modern country did they originate, the question would be unanswerable. If we mean is there evidence of a fossil proto-pirohi (the way I took the term) then we would have to say that it's possible the earlier Slavs were aware of some external dumpling which they adopted and named pirohi, or the like, but to science and history the ultimate origin of these dumplings is unknown. I think the obvious solution to this point is simply to say that pierogies as such are a Slavic food item and that their origin predates modern national boundaries, rather than saying ambiguously that their "origin" is unknown. Let me know what you think.

2) Well, see number one above.  :)

3) The problem here is that there is indeed a group of people who call themselves Rusyn (or Rusnak, Lemko...) who differ in dialect from Ukranians, Slovaks and Poles, who do have a historical identity and a self awareness, especially in the Americas, but who were supressed and shoehorned into modern nation state standards by the Communists. In English, these people do refer to themselves as Ruthenians. (Both the Rusyn and Ruthenes articles as they stand are such a mess and so political I would rather not touch them. The article Ruthenes as written is focused on the controversy of the name, rather than on identifying that there is a real ethnos which uses that name now while no other nation state is using it. When I had linked to it before, it was about the Rusyns, not about the "controversy.") The reality of the dialects, the mediaeval kingdom centered on Lemberg, etc., is undeniable. If I speak to a Pole, he will tell me I am a Russian. A Slovak will tell me I am a Ukranian, and a Ukranian will say I am a Pole. My own people call ourselves "Rusyn" and our dialect "Ponaszomu" which will tell you a lot. In any case, we are not standard Slovaks, Poles or Ukranians. We do have a history, and we do call ourselves Rusyn while currently Ukranians call themselves Ukranians. I think the link to the Rusyns (which is the article most relevant to my people) should stand. I would name it "Ruthene" since that is what most Rusyns use as a name when they identify themselves in English to English speakers. (Also, I suggest you google "Ruthene pirohi") For sources, see Robert R Magocsi and Juraj Vanko in google scholar.

4) No real stand here on vareniki, just think focusing on semicirularity as such is irrelevant, since that shape comes from use of cup rather than knife in cutting the dough. We make the round ones potato and the triangular ones sauerkraut for visual identification.

I think the best course would be to address each matter separately so we can hammer out each sentence without reverting all the changes if there's an objection to just a part. Let's start with the hardest part, the "unknown" origin. I suggest we try some wording that says that the term pierogi as a slavic word for dumpling originated before modern boundaries, so that origins cannot be traced to any modern political entity.Kjaer (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your strategy of "piece-by-piece" editing. Will you take the first shot at "unknown origin"? I will meanwhile try to research the "Ruthenian question" more in depth. --Zlerman (talk) 04:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, sure, lay the hard part off on me. :)
I hope I do not come off as too much of a Ruthenian partisan. My ancestors did not use that word. They lived in Austria Hungary and while they called themselves Russians, they called standard Russian "pomoskovsky." I was simply surprised that the link (which I originally added back last summer) had been removed, and I restored it yesterday without reading the article itself. My sole interest is that there is such a people, they do cook pirohi, that when they speak to people who call themselves Poles or Slovaks or Ukranians they are told that they do not speak any of those standard literary languages, and that they should therefore be included as an entity even in diaspora. As for what to name them, I am not dead set. I think the current article Ruthene is a disaster because a controversy cannot have priority over an entity. That is, if the identification of an entity is controversial, that is fine, but identify the entity first. My prefernce for the word Ruthene over Rusyn is simply English usage. The article on Bavarians is not entitled Bayerischers. I will look at the wording of the "unknown" part some time tomorrow.Kjaer (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, not having heard a response I assume the matter is settled.Kjaer (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You have not heard a response (from me) because I am traveling and have had no time to deal with Pierogi-related issues. My response will come eventually in one form or another. --Zlerman (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Piroshki

Piroshki is an Iranian dish that is identical to the food that this article is about. Should it be included? Or is it something completely different, or non-notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.113.110 (talk) 03:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you please provide more information on the Iranian dish? Links to descriptions, recipes, photos, etc., to enable us to judge. Is the Iranian "piroshki" a dumpling like pierogi or a bun like pirozhki? --Zlerman (talk) 04:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Rewrote introductory sentence, heavy-duty linguistics, "incorrectly"

I have rewritten the first paragraph. Per WP:Definitions, a Wikipedia article is not a Wiktionary article, and should begin by describing the subject, not the word.

I moved 'Proto-Slavic root "pir" (festivity)' and the variant word forms into the section "Origin and name variants". But I have taken out the discussion of the pluralization of words formed from the pir- root in various Slavic languages. I submit that the former is relevant to the history of the foodstuff, but the latter, while no doubt correct, is etymological detail. I copied it to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Talk:pierogi so that it might be of use there.

Finally, I have removed the statement that North American speakers pluralize this word "incorrectly." A word may come from another language, but that doesn't mean it brings its entire orthography with it. Surely no one here would claim that Polish speakers should pluralize komputer as komputers and not komputery. Matuszek (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Two articles about one food

There is Vareniki article too. May be combine into one? --= APh =-- 00:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Different dishes culturally and ethnically. They even have different shapes: see photos in the two articles. Similarities are already adequately taken care of by cross-linking. Not to be combined with much more thorough discussion. --Zlerman (talk) 03:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm russian, and It's very strange to me to see this article. "Pelmeni" and "pirozhki" are two different kinds of meal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.221.146.211 (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The Karjalan Piirakka

Is there a reason for the Karjalan Piirakka not to be mentioned in this article, at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscararon (talk • contribs) 18:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Gnocci

What's with the line that says "Please note this is actually gnocci" What is it referring to? Pierogies or the similar Korean dish? As strange as it is to accuse of POV in a food article, it seems like this might be a case; but, perhaps I am just not understanding what the intended meaning is. If the latter is the case, then a rewording would be a good idea IMO. Mwv2 (talk) 04:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This article seems to be at least partially wrong and directionless or somewhat lost at sea

There seems to be an attempt going on to cover too much territory here. That meaning that baked pastries and boiled foods (dumplings) are being lumped together in one article. The Estonian pirukas is a baked item and as far as I know it never gets the dim sum treatment. The dough is made, the flliing put on it, the pastry is folded over and into the oven it goes, perhaps having been brushed with liquid egg beforehand.

Karjalan Piirakka is a relative (baked dough with filling) but seems to me to be sufficiently different to warrant being treated in a separate item. The reason being that all the others discussed here, if I am not mistaken, are folded over, but the Karelian piirakas is open-faced, has a specific content (rice, carrots) and even tends to have a different dough. Often darkish, perhaps like whole wheat or buckwheat?

The important part though is that the Estonian pirukas is oven-baked and does not get boiled. It is never slippery or noodle-like. But they are awfully good, perhaps with some broth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.147.226 (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Piruhi Turkish

(Ottoman cuisine and Sultanate of Rûm cuisine)--Pak bahadur (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"Pierogi Pocket

This term was coined by the Mrs. T's corporation for use in their contest. It is not actually used outside of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.97.235 (talk) 02:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Types of pierogi in Poland, and its popularity

This article says that pierogi filled with meat or cabbage and mushrooms or fruits are more popular than pierogi ruskie with potatoes and cottage cheese, this is wrong. I would rather say that the ones with potatoes and cottage cheese are more popular wheras variant with cabbagge and mushrooms is less common, served mostly on Christmass Eve. And then after these two comes the meat variant, and the fruit which is served mostly summer only. Also, this article is wrong in the part where it says that usually sweet pierogi are served with cream while savory ones with bacon fat and bits - WRONG - Savory ones are very often served with cream, or even cream and bacon at once, article also doesn't mention fried onion which as popular as bacon and cream. Trust me, I am polish :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chartkor (talk • contribs) 04:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Pierogi are popular far beyond Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, including Philadelphia, so I have added more templates to this page.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ottoman ?

This article had been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ottoman Empire. Frankly I saw no relevance. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Very low relevance, if any, so I have removed it. --Threeafterthree (talk) 17:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I would also remove the Pennsylvania, Philly and Pittsburg banners as well, but thats me :)...--Threeafterthree (talk) 17:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent Edits

While I do agree with most of the changes, and I am removed enough from the subject of the article to assume true NPOV. Here are some points, regarding edits by User:Medeis, and why I am restoring some, plus questions as to the wisdom/relevance of the other edits:

  • Deleted the following line in a reference cite: Mr. T. Invented this in ITaly fool. Capital of the Pierogi Pocket of America. (any reason for that unnecessary hostility, plus the assertion that Mr. T, if he is a real person and the chain's personal chef, invented pierogis in Italy?)
  • The inclusion of a Similar Dishes subsection was to prevent the See Also section from becoming filled with links to dishes which vary only slightly from Pierogi. And from the looks of it, virtually every nation in Eurasia has one. It unneccessarily clutters the See Also section. If the Similar Dishes section has to be removed, I recommend not adding its entries into the See Also section.
  • Removed, again, the claim of Cara DiStefanoski in Pittsburgh as being the inventor of Pierogi (already marked as dubious prior to earlier removal), considering the obviousness of the fact that Pierogi has existed long before America did. Seems more likely that she introduced it to Pittsburgh, not invented. However, Googling doesn't even show any hits for the name Cara DiStefanoski and variants thereof. Extremely unlikely to be true and too controversial to be left on the page.
  • Some of your edits are puzzling. You seem to remove some quite relevant, if unreferenced, info from paragraphs while retaining and rewording others. Your edit comments do not reflect your changes. An example: you removed valid etymological entries in the section 'Origin and name variants'.
  • The dish is Slavic, but the word is Polish. I do not support generalizing it as being Slavic. That is the reason why there are subsections on different forms in different countries, which may be similar and have the same etymological roots but are not the same. Pierogi as a word, is a very specifically Polish. That would be like removing the country of origin for the Chinese Misua simply because noodles exist virtually throughout Eurasia. I've also removed Lithuanian cuisine from the See also section. All the cuisines with related dishes are already listed below in the article's categories. Listing one would mean having to list everything in there as well. I retained only the two most closely relevant (Polish and Jewish cuisine)
  • No reason was given for the removal of the Cypriot entry. Unreferenced it may be, pirohou/pirohu is a valid closely related dish. A quick google search can ascertain that.

--A Step Into Oblivion (talk) 11:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Also may I remind you of WP:AGF, it's quite striking how most of the deleted entries were those edited by me. Even those I merely copy-edited. An example is the entire Cyprus entry which already existed before I corrected the nesting format.--A Step Into Oblivion (talk) 11:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
The concept is not Polish, no more than the word "Hand" is German. The spelling pierog is the Polish spelling. The article has one title, and the word used in the title is based on the Polish spelling. But the concept is Slavic and the article is about the concept, not its particular spelling in one language.μηδείς (talk) 22:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

As for the Cypriot entry, any verifiable 3rd party (i.e., not my mom's recipe or a restaurant menu) reference will do.μηδείς (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact that a recipe exists, commercial websites or not, should have already made it clear that the food item is real. That is: citable but lacks references. Since when do you delete in response to improper references, especially edits which even through the most cursory searching is obviously citable? See WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM.
  • If you dispute or disagree with a given edit at cursory inspection, research it (or ask someone more knowledeable of the subject to do it for you). Don't delete it.
  • If an edit is sloppily done but is citable, fix it. Don't delete it.
  • If an edit is citable but lacks references, find references yourself. Don't delete it.
  • If an edit is not significant/controversial but is suspect. See if you can at least ascertain a degree of truth, then request citation.
Only when you are reasonably sure that the addition is apparently false and/or controversial do you delete it (as I did with the Cara DiStefanoski entry, which you restored despite lacking citations as well). And you can't do it yourself? If you have the time to delete entire paragraphs, you should have had the time to google and find references. Furthermore, you seemed to arbitrarily delete some edits while keeping others which do not have references as well. That doesn't match your reasoning. And no explanations for the other edits? Particularly the first one which not only breaks WP:CIV but is borderline vandalism (being inline).
As for the article being about the Slavic concept of the dish, that again is purely your POV which you reinforced by deliberately generalizing the article. Honestly, I have no quarrel about turning it into either a very specific article on the Polish pierogi or a general article on Slavic boiled, baked, or fried dumplings, but I doubt if that is feasible. There is the issue that it is becoming far too vague, raised in this comment Talk:Pierogi#This article seems to be at least partially wrong and directionless or somewhat lost at sea. It was started originally as an article on the Polish pierogi, the spelling pierog is the singular Polish term. The spelling pierogi is how Anglophones call it, derived from Polish-descended immigrants in the US. There is the fact as well that even though the some of the dishes from neighboring countries surrounding Poland are superficially similar and share the same etymological roots, their preparation, method of eating, and cultural significance varies enough to make it abundantly clear that it is not the same dish. Currently the article itself can't seem to decide if it's referring to the dish as it is known by the Poles, or the dish as it is know by everyone from Russia to Canada.
I'm assuming you are of Slavic ancestry? I am neither Slavic nor Polish and I have never even eaten pierogi. My interest here is on clarity, not national significance.
And lastly, here I'll give you some, the wonders of a few seconds of Google, you should try it: http://www.triprentacar.com/en/north-cyprus/72-cypriot-cuisine http://www.cyprusive.com/?CID=54 http://www.cyprusive.com/?CID=197 --A Step Into Oblivion (talk) 01:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You have some nerve talking about civility, and a highly mistaken opinion of my regard for your opinions. If you have references for the Cypriot cuisine just add them. Don't lecture me on policy. The burden of proof is on the editor who adds the comment - it is not my responsibility to do your research for you.

As for "pierogi" being Polish, you are confusing the name with the thing. The article is about the thing, not the word.

As for the word, under pirogi, the Oxford English Dictionary attributes the name to Ukranians under the name pyrohy and to the Russians under the name pirog, with the word first entering English through Yiddish. Calvert Watkins' Dictionary of Indo-European Roots (p68) derives the word pirog from a slavic root meaning drink, with an extended form meaning celebration.μηδείς (talk) 02:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who added: "Mr. T. Invented this in ITaly fool." on the article page, if I may remind you. It wasn't directed at me of course, but it is still quite reflective of your apparent attitude. And it is unmistakably hostile. I guess I was expecting an explanation... oh well.
And yes, see, those edits were not mine, I've actually only done restructuring and copyediting on the article, but I still tried to reference some of them after I made sure they were indeed verifiable. That's the difference between your edits. Mine (and that of the editors you cut out) was constructive though admittedly apparently inadmissible, I acknowledge that and apologize for it, yours is deletionist and arbitrary. If you are going to delete things by policy, the least you can do is apply it to everything, not pick and choose. You left only the entries which support your view of a Slavic origin even if they were also unreferenced and deleted the rest. And 'I have the nerve'? Why? Are you above reproach with regards to policy? If you are already very familiar with the general guidelines, then use that knowledge. Deleting is the easy way out, and the least productive (and the most popular Wikipedia activity it seems). You can't even be bothered restoring the things you deleted. Much more work, isn't it?
Anyway that aside, 'confusing the name with the thing' is exactly the point of contention. Is it talking about the word (national connotations, culinary interest) or the thing (etymological)? And why quote etymological roots from dictionaries which only support your view. There is no consensus as to how it exactly entered the English language. Various dictionaries say Russian, Polish, Ukrainian, or Jewish; and the origin of those as being either Balto-Slavic or Turkic/Tatar. And saying the words share the same Proto-Slavic root does not necessarily mean they all refer to one kind of food. That carries as much weight as saying the German Torte is the same as the English Tart, French Tarte, Italian Torta, Spanish Torta, or the Mexican Torta.
Note that I am not for or against turning this into a general article about the Slavic dumpling, but you do have to give consideration to the above. You also simply can not supersede everyone else. If you haven't noticed, there are several discussions in this talk page extending years back which deal with the problem of treating this as a Polish dish, a Slavic one, or simply a type of dumpling irrespective of ethnic origin, as well as several discussions of similar dishes and their main differences with pierogi as anglophones understand them.
One one hand, the Russian Pirog/Ukrainian Pyrih is different from a Russian Pirozhki or from Ukrainian Varenyky, and yet all of them share the same etymon, and all have their own articles. Why should the burden of compounding all of them as a dish with similar origins fall on the Polish version? Will the Polish Pierogi get its own article too? Where?
On the other hand, everyone is trying to claim this for their national cuisines which is why I asked if you were of Slavic ancestry. In the short time this has been on my watchlist I have seen several attempts already to remove all other cuisines in the [brimming] category lists but that of the countries they favor (including your removal of the Cypriot entry). So it may actually be a good idea to generalize it. But to what extent? And to which ethnic group? Turks, Cypriots, Greeks, Armenians, Arabs and Jews aren't Slavs, but they too have traditional variants of the dish, all with names sharing the same apparent origin which disputes the Proto-Slavic theory of origin. See Turkish Börek.
Anyway, are you interested in discussing this and reaching a consensus at all? If not, say so now, and I won't bother you.--A Step Into Oblivion (talk) 07:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

October 8 vs. October 8th

This is a discussion I have been having with μηδείς on my talk page about whether National Pierogy Day should be listed as October 8 or October 8th. I would appreciate any help in settling this matter. Erianna (talk) 08:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

In your edit summary you said "a guidline subject to exception - here the "holiday" is geographically situated and local usage is proper". Could you please show me where in the Wikipedia Manual of Style it says that there is such an exception? I'd like to know for future reference. Erianna (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Erianna. The MOS page you yourself quoted refers to itself as a "guideline" (i.e., not a policy) subject to exceptions. Given that it is a supposed American "holiday", and not a date in world history, it should follow local usage. μηδείς (talk) 05:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I think exceptions are meant for cases such as ordinal suffixes in dates within a quotation. I don't think local usage qualifies as such a case. Please refer to the following closed discussion advocating ordinal suffixes in dates as local usage in the UK: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Archive_114#Please_allow_ordinal_dates. A search of the archives of the discussion page for WP:MOSNUM also supports the rule that ordinal suffixes are not to be used in dates. Erianna (talk) 05:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to continue the discussion here, that is fine, I will watch this page. You may also wish to continue it on the article page, that would be fine, you can cust and paste this discussion to that location if you wish.

(1) Closed discussions are just that - closed discussions. If they were policy then the particular policy page would have been edited to follow. There is no policy. (2) I am leery of edits to change dates, spellings, measurements, etc., to fit some "better" format. Formats are matters of convention, superiority is in the eye of the perceiver. Wikipedia is improved by substantive edits, not continual edits between competing forms. (3) Had the original been 2 February, and were someone to have edited it to February 2nd, I would have reverted that edit as well. Both sorts of edits are wastes of time and should be discouraged. (4) According to the MOS, consistency is one consideration. Local usage is another. Here the context has been explicitly defined as American and there is no list of holidays within which it would be better to maintain consistency. (5) This is not a "date". A date identifies a unique point in human history. John F Kennedy was murdered on the same date that Dr Who premiered. This gives the day of the year on which a supposed holiday falls, not an historical date. (6) The day of the holiday is, according to the Mrs T's website, October 8th, which commerates the day on which Mrs' T's Ted Twarzik first did something or other. (I prefer Hanka Brand if you have to buy store bought). See http://www.pierogies.com/Wholesale/event.asp?showimg=0&articleid=154.

That last point is determinative. The article should be edited to reflect pierogies.com as the source of the claim and the edit should follow the source. μηδείς (talk) 06:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, μηδείς. Here are my answers to your points above. If you feel this requires further discussion, perhaps it should be moved to the article's talk page as this discussion is getting rather long.
(1) The reason why I referenced that closed discussion is because it gives a similar argument against the current policy (of not using ordinal suffixes in dates) to the one you gave. As for the statement "If they were policy then the particular policy page would have been edited to follow", the particular policy page would only need editing if the discussion was successful in changing the current policy - which it wasn't.
(2) Please refer to first sentence in WP:MOSNUM: "This part of the Manual of Style aims to achieve consistency in the use and formatting of numbers, dates, times, measurements, currencies and coordinates in English Wikipedia articles. Consistent standards make articles easier to read, write, and edit." The change in format I made was to maintain consistent standards in formatting. It was not a change between competing forms as the use of ordinal suffixes in dates is against policy and so October 8th is not a competing form. An example of useless continual edits between competing forms would be switching the date back and forth betweeen October 8 and 8 October as both forms are allowed according to the MOS.
(3) Small formatting edits are not wastes of time to be discouraged. That is why minor edits exist.
(4) As stated in (1) and (2), the closed discussion I referenced indicated that local usage is not an argument for using ordinal suffixes in dates and so the current policy of not using ordinal suffixes in dates stands. I don't understand what you mean here: "there is no list of holidays within which it would be better to maintain consistency".
(5) If you continue reading the section on dates in the MOS, you will see through the examples used that the MOS considers a date to be a reference to a particular day represented within a calendar system, not a unique point in human history.
(6) Formatting of the article does not have to reflect the source unless the source is directly quoted. Erianna (talk) 07:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I should have clarified (6). Formatting of the article does not have to reflect the source unless the source is directly quoted and the date is included within that quotation. Erianna (talk) 04:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Erianna.

Again, I have to note that the guidline you cite it is not a policy like wp:or. It is a guideline subject to exception.

If this "holiday" is added to a list of dated holidays, you will have my support in making it conform to the style of the other days in that list. Here it is normal American usage in a section withe the word America in it.

Minor edits exist for things like spelling errors and links. This is neither. Small formatting edits to combat between preferred stylistic/regional varieties are indeed to be discouraged. The edit does not follow the source. It does not read naturally to an American. It is not confusing to a speaker of any other variety - it Just sounds American, perhaps. If the "policy" were that the only exception to the general format convention were quotes (as you suggest in an early comment) then the policy would say that quoted dates are the only exception. Not only does this "policy" not say that. This "policy" is not a policy.

μηδείς (talk) 06:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, when I said policy I meant guideline. I only used it to match your use of the word policy in (1). In any case, I guess I will move this to the article's talk page since this discussion is quite lengthy now. Erianna (talk) 07:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I found this discussion because it was posted at WP:3O. Erianna is correct, the manual of style should be applied here--see WP:DATESNO. It is pretty black and white: "Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes, articles, or leading zeros." As for WP:STRONGNAT, that MOS appears only to apply to choosing between "8 October" and "October 8", not whether to use ordinals.

μηδείς, while you are correct in your statement that the MOS is not WP policy, it does describe current practices, and is pretty rigidly applied; I don't think "it sounds better" is a compelling argument for ignoring it. You said it yourself--"Formats are matters of convention, superiority is in the eye of the perceiver." Thus, in absence of any possible determination of superiority, we fall back to WP:MOS--that's why we have it! I'm sure such arguments were given their due consideration when forming that guideline; if you have a good reason to change it, you should suggest it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Mildly MadTC 12:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not the Mrs' T's page

I am sorry, but the "holiday" is clearly a company's self promotional material and in violation of NPOV:

"On October 8, 1952, Ted Twardzik, Sr., founder of Mrs. T's Pierogies, produced the company's first samples. Today, pierogi has become a mainstream weeknight meal option for families across the U.S." http://www.todayshottrends.net/food-drink/national-pierogi-day.html

μηδείς (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

You advise in your edit summary to read the source. The source is a local newspaper which quotes a company spokesman as saying the holiday is registered, not the congressional record saying it has been declared a national holiday. Even were the claim true it would still be a patent violation of NPOV. As it stands you have no source for a biased claim. μηδείς (talk) 03:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think it is clearly self-promotional? It is called National Pierogy Day, not Mrs' T's Pierogy Day. The day is to celebrate pierogies as a food item, not Mrs. T's pierogies specifically. Is the fact that National Pierogy Day is on October 8, a day important to Mrs. T's but not a day the general public would immediately associate with Mrs. T's without prior knowledge of the company's history, enough to be considered self-promotional?
Could you clarify how this is a violation of NPOV and a case of undue weight as you pointed out on my talk page? I think you may be talking about the verifiability of National Pierogy Day, in which case "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true". The local paper given as a source is a reliable source as it is a mainstream newspaper. This newspaper, as well as other reliable and unreliable sources that I have come across but did not cite, acknowledges October 8 as National Pierogy Day. As the source says, "it may never become a paid holiday, but the observance of National Pierogy Day is growing", so I thought it was notable enough to include in the article. Perhaps we could compromise and change the sentence to something like "While not a paid holiday, National Pierogy Day is being observed on October 8"? Erianna (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
If this actually is a "registered" national holiday then that fact should be verifiable in some sort of registry. As it stands, the most that can be said from the source is not that the day is a holiday, but that Mrs. T's promotes it. But that would be undue weight on behalf of a commercial enterprise. μηδείς (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Self-promotion and indiscriminate publicity

Shortcut

Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability:

Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, paid material, autobiography, and product placement are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

Thank you for your most recent comment. I understand this explanation way better than your previous comments on this. I emailed Mrs. T's about whether National Pierogy Day is really registered or not and I was pointed to Chase's Calendar of Events. I don't have access to its contents so I can't verify that National Pierogy Day is listed inside. You mentioned on my talk page that I need a federal government source to verify that this is a holiday, however Chase's website mentions that Congress stopped introducing legislation for special observances in 1995, and that "some state legislatures and governors proclaim special days, as do mayors of cities." (http://www.mhprofessional.com/templates/chases/about.php) I think in this case that National Pierogy Day can be categorized as a special day; it doesn't need to be a federal holiday to use the word "national" in the day's name (another example: National Grandparents' Day).
I think SPIP applies more if I were trying to make an article on National Pierogy Day, as opposed to just including a sentence on it in the Pierogi article. According to WP:EVENT, "If the notability of an event is in question but it is primarily associated with a particular person, company or organization, or can be covered as part of a wider topic, it may preferable to describe the event within a preexisting article, by merging content."
If you feel that this sentence about National Pierogy Day should remain excluded then so be it. In any case, I found it interesting that the entire sentence disappeared from the article shortly after a third opinion favoring October 8 was given on the October 8 vs. October 8th discussion (a discussion which had been stagnant for more than a month), when you could have at any time prior to that cited undue weight or self-promotional commercial material as a reason for removing the sentence (and the point of contention) entirely. Erianna (talk) 05:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This is all about the sources, not my opinion or yours. The matter of the date had to do with fidelity to the source and local usage as reflected in the source. You mistake my motives if you think that I have been waiting weeks for someone to revivify the previous argument so that I could find an excuse to delete the comment out of spite. I watch well over a thousand articles, create new articles, and have a life outside wikipedia. There is no requirement that I drop my life to focus on achieving some perfect static version of this article, or that all errors be addressed here before I continue with any other activities.

As it stands, a neutral description of the matter would be that Mrs' T's promotes October 8th as "national pierogi day". Yet that would be a violation of the quoted policy since there are no sources which recognize this "holiday" which are not connected to that commercial interest's promotional activities. I trust this is clear whatever one thinks of my motives. μηδείς (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This topic is a bit confusing to me. I posted about Americanized pierogie flavors coming out of philadelphia. I did go as far as to mention The Pierogie Kitchen, however that was only because they were the first to seriously push the boundaries by making jalapeno, and Philadelphia Cheesesteak pierogie. My post got edited to say,

"Unlike other countries with newer populations of Eastern European immigrants, the modern pierogi is found in a wide selection of flavors throughout grocery stores in the U.S. Many of these grocery-brand pierogi contain non-traditional ingredients to appeal to general American tastes, including spinach, jalapeño peppers and chicken."

While this is true, it leaves out the fact that Philadelphia's mom and pop shop Pierogie Kitchen should really get credit. I'm not saying the website should be linked as I originally had it but it is a fact that this establishment invented many unique flavors, contributing to the development and adoption of this unique food item in North America. 

If Mrs. T's gets mentioned as it is now why not The Pierogie Kitchen? Rennekamp5802 (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This may be only my opinion, facts belong in Encyclopedias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rennekamp5802 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no problem adding something about them if there is an article on them in the Inquirer or another notable and reliable source. If you have such a source, make the edit and give a reference. μηδείς (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

"Pierogi" (or whatever) vs "Vareniki" (or whatever)

In Russian, Ukrainian and Belorussian (am I sure other Slavic countries as well) "pierogi" and "vareniki" ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT things! Articles call "pierogi" and picture and description means "vareniki". "Pierogi" is bigger backed disk (aka big pie, for example apple pie) that get cut into portions before consuming. There is also "pirozhki" very similar to "pirogi" - also baked, but smaller in size and already portioned (aka small pie, for example meat pie). Neither one EVER get boiled. In contrast "vareniki" ONLY boiled and never baked, most close in English will be "boiled dumplings". Please do not use foreign words if it contradicts with its original meaning - use closest English analog instead. At current state article give completely wrong information - i.e. utter rubbish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.15.243.67 (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but what is important in English Wikipedia' are the things, potato filled dumplings, which happen to be known by English speakers of non-slavic descent by the name pierogi. While pies are a native Anglo-American dish, pyrohy are not, and the slavic dish, most widely known in English as pierogies, are the subject of this article. The fact that in certain dialects, pirogi means what pie means in English, is a side issue that is well explained in the article. μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I still completely disagree. OK, I have done some research and it appears like word "pierogi" that originated from Polish widely used in USA and Canada for all kind of dumpligs that traditional to Slavics kitchens regardless if they boiled, backed or fried. However mind you that it is not that widely used in British and Australian English, in fact it is missed in any dictionary. Furthemore it is appears that "pierogi" get sread out through USA and Canada because some kind of commercial product available in this countries that was based on Polish "pierogi" and named so. So even if it is widely known in USA and Canada it is completely unknown for natively English speaking people from Australia (checked few, no-one ever heard of it). Therefore it is still brings a lot of confusion (read this very Discussion for example) because it does not reflect subject corectly. My suggestions: 1. Rename this article to "Pierogi (Polish dish)" and on very top ot it put something like "Traditional polish dish that has many variation in other kitchens like Ukrainian 'vareniki', Russian 'pelemeni' etc". 2. Create new article "Pierogi" that simply says "Word "Pierogi" widely used in USA and Canada in regards to all kind of dumplings originated from Slavics kitchens". Make cross-links and it will eliminates all confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.55.179.237 (talk) 06:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Very simply, no. The article is about the thing - potato dumplings - and the things are called pierogi or the like in English in the US, Canada, and Britain. See the Oxford English Ditionary. The word's usage long predates the commercial availability of the food. And the food and the word is certainly not uniquely Polish. Indeed, if you read the caption for the image that heads the article, taken from the Polish article, the items are referred to as ruskie perogi, i.e., "Rusyn pierogies". μηδείς (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Very simple - you are talking nonsense. In Australia edition of Oxford and Macquarie "pierogi" are absent. Also I have World Encyclopedia 1985 where they are absent also. If you have a look at Oxford on-line it clearly indicates that this not English term, but rather North American http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0631450#m_en_gb0631450 . I still have to question some "true" British people, but will make a bet that they have no clue. This word belong only to American-Canadian dialect of English and indeed not to English as a whole. And while food indeed not unique to polish kitchen, term "pierogi" as reference to boiling dumpling is indeed Polish. In Russian, Ukrainian and Belorussian it has completely different meaning. And I do not care what Polish Wikipedia says - those stuff may be selling in Poland under commercial name "Pierogi Russikie", but in fact it is clearly "Vareniki Ukrainskie". Furthermore - this particular dish is not that common in Russia at all (see "pelmeni" instead), but hugely popular in Ukraine and called "Vareniki". I am ethnic Russian, lived in Ukraine and graduate Ukrainian school, have relatives in Belarus and currently live in Australia for last 16 years and lets me tell you - even if such state of article has some appealing to American-Canadian readers, it is completely misleading from Ukrainian, Russian, Belorussian and generic English point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.13.182 (talk) 01:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
What is not covered in any particular regional dictionary has nothing to do with the meaning of the word in those dialects that do use it. I do not contest that what are called pyrohy by Ruysns and pierogi by poles and are eaten by anglophones under the name pierogies are indeed called vareniki or various other things. All of that is addressed in the article. I am not interested in a metaphysical argument as to what pierogies really are. The relevant fact is that these things are called by this name in English and that the word does not refer only to a Polish foodstuff. I will not keep repeating this. μηδείς (talk) 03:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
"The relevant fact is that these things are called by this name in English and that the word does not refer only to a Polish foodstuff." NOT IN ENGLISH!!!!!! In American-Canadian dialect only. Or you believe that English Wikipedia actually American-Canadian only? This what I have said - make an article and say - "'Pierogi' in American-Canadian dialect of English means various dumpling-style food". But matter of fact it does not mean so in ALL English, or Oxford dictionary not an argument for you? It clearly means different things in different places and nothing in others. In Australia (English speaking country indeed) it does not mean anything. So IMHO it has clearly reflect that such interpretation of "pirogi" is very regional and has to state it from very beginning of the article. Current state of article implies that this is ONLY meaning and elaboration somewhere in the middle is clearly not good enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.13.182 (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Why does is say Poland is the country of origin?

Under the "origins" sections, it states "The origins of pierogi come from Poland". First of all it's not true. Even the Polish language Wikepedia states that pierogis were brought to Poland from Kievan Rus (now Ukraine) by Jacek Odrowąż. However that's the Polish history of pierogies. It was already established on these pages that pierogies appear in every Eastern European kitchen and it is difficult to determine who invented them, so could someone please remove this overly nationalistic (and ungrammatical) statement. Mykyta (talk) 05:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Since no one else did I removed the opening sentence of the Origins sections - "The origins of pierogi term come from Poland". This is not the article about the word or the term, it's the article about the actual item. Mykyta (talk) 06:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Saint

"Pierogi are probably the only Polish dish that has its own patron saint. "Swiety Jacek z pierogami!", (St. Hyacinth and his pierogi!) is an old expression of surprise

I'm Polish and I've never heard such nonsence. Maybe it's a regional thing but for sure not on the national level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.57.129 (talk) 05:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It's Hyacinth of Poland. He allegedly produced pierogi to feed arm people.Xx236 (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

"european"

The food originates with the slavs, which is documented in the article. Changing the origin from central/eastern European to an unqualified European is undocumented and false--there are no native Irish or Spanish pierogies, for example. μηδείς (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

"Slavic"/"central and Eastern European"

Pierogi are now a generic European food. Apparently the origin is not so clear, and they may not be Slavic at all. Swedes believe they are Karelian (ancient part of Finland). In Sweden we have piroger. There are all sorts of them. there are also Karelska Piroger, in English called"Karelian pasty", of course, slightly different. I already provided the resources for my edits but they have been reverted without even looking at them, so I quote them again: http://www.ica.se/recept/piroger/ http://www.recept.com/piroger/ http://www.recepten.se/recept/piroger.html http://receptfavoriter.se/recept/piroger-grundrecept-pirogdeg.html Pirogi can be different, but they are similar - pasty and meat inside. I suppose a trip to Sweden would do to say that it is traditional as a dish. I am not going to argue, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.128.236.143 (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The solution if they are eaten in Sweden is simply to add a section on Sweden. It is certainly not justified to change their provenance or origin to Europe as a whole on this basis. We might as well say they are worldwide then, given they are eaten in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and so forth. The common Slavic origin of the word and that it has been borrowed into other languages is uncontested. Pir- is neither a Germanic nor a Baltic root, and has no etymological origins within either of those families. Find some sources that show they have bee adopted in Sweden, just as has been done for the US and Canada, and add that material to the article. μηδείς (talk) 02:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Please do that for me. I am sure my edits will be reverted. Without reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.128.236.143 (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Det är inga problem. But the sources you give are recipes at blogs. I really need something more substantial, like a magazine or newspaper saying they are popular. A ref for the Swedish idea they come from Karelia would als help. μηδείς (talk) 06:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I think you are expecting too much. In the past, people rarely thought about settling who invented what. Food was just food. Still, references to piroger are as old in Sweden are at least 200 years old:

https://www.google.es/search?q=pirog+karelia&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb&gws_rd=cr&ei=UE_IUpj2EaeU0AXzgIHQDQ#channel=fflb&q=svensk+pirog&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=bks --89.128.236.143 (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't doubt that pierogies have been eaten in Sweden for a long time. The issue is that we have reliable sources which show the origin of the word within common Slavic which dates to some 1,000 ago. The word is not native to Swedish or the Norse languages. The solution is very simple, add a listing for Sweden under the varieties heading in the article along with all the other countries. Be aware the Swedish-language recipe sites you link to above wont be considered reliable sources.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pierogi/Archive_1&oldid=1255400706"