This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Brewing of kissel in Belgorod Kievsky. A miniature from the Radziwiłł Chronicle
Concerning this section: "It may suggest that hogweed soup was on some occasions combined with a fermented mixture of water and barley flour, oatmeal or rye flour. Such soured flour-and-water mixture, mentioned in Polish historical sources as early as 997,[1] was originally known as kisiel (from the archaic Polish verb kisieć 'to become sour'[2]). Eventually, both Polish words, barszcz and kisiel, shifted their meanings: the sour flour soup became commonly known as barszcz (and later – to distinguish it from the red beetroot borscht – as barszcz biały 'white borscht'), whereas kisiel refers, in modern Polish, to a sweet fruit-flavored jelly made form potato starch."
Do the authors specify which historical sources they quote? I suspect that they may refer to the East Slavic Radziwiłł Chronicle which in turn includes the old East Slavic Primary Chronicle where there is a story of how kissel saved the 10th-century Kievan Rus' city of Belgorod Kievsky, besieged by nomadic Pechenegs in 997 (exactly the same year!). The story is rehearsed in some detail in Kissel#Etymology.
In any case, the whole description should be generalized from "Polish" to "Slavic". The meaning of "kissel" as a fruit and starch based jelly/drink is nowadays the same in Belarussian, Polish, Russian, and Ukrainian. The historical oatmeal kissel is known today in Russia as "Russian kissel" (see ru:Русский кисель). AFAIK, "Russian kissel" is rarely cooked today in Russia. It was basically revived by Pokhlyobkin (see Кисель in his "Dictionary of Cookery").
Also, the root of the word kissel is the same in all these languages. According to Vasmer's etymological dictionary it is the same for all Slavic languages (see кислый). While Polish kisiel is traced back to archaic Polish kisieć, Russian кисель and кислый ("sour") is traced back to archaic кысати. So I think one should just mention that this comes from the Proto-Slavic root for "sour" (see wikt:kisel, wikt:кислый and ru:wikt:кислый).
Also note, that the Czech version of white borscht is called kyselo.
Latest comment: 8 years ago19 comments3 people in discussion
Hi Taivo, I'd like to discuss your recent edits to this article's Etymology section. You modified the statement that the Yiddish word borsht derives from Ukrainian or Russian borshch by removing the mention of a possible Russian origin. You also removed two dictionary references calling them "stupid" and "lazy", and replaced them with references to two other dictionaries. Of the latter two, one is not available online and I have no access to it, so I would appreciate if you could provide a verbatim quotation (here, on talk page). The other one says "from Yiddish borsht and Ukrainian and Russian borshch", so it actually defeats your point. You haven't provided any convincing arguments why the sources you removed were less realiable than the ones you replaced them with. On a more general note, Ukrainian борщ and Russian борщ are identical in spelling and identical or very similar (depending on the dialect) in pronunciation. It is probably impossible to determine with absolute certainty which of these is the source of the Yiddish word. — Kpalion(talk) 16:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
The print source (which I ALWAYS consider to be superior to on-line sources) states: "[Little Russian borshch] A Little Russian ragout or soup...". The original printing was in 1947, so, of course, "Little Russian" means "Ukrainian". I consider all references to "Russian" to be lazy for the simple reason that many lexicographers see a word that they recognize as "Russian" and don't stop to consider that the source may actually be Ukrainian, not Russian. They stop at the "default" setting for anything written in the Cyrillic alphabet. The 1947 source I consider to be more accurate since 1) it recognizes that the soup is Ukrainian in origin and therefore 2) recognizes that the word is Ukrainian and not Russian. Obviously, if there is a word that is identical in both Ukrainian and Russian and there is no obvious reason to choose one over the other, we will generally choose the Russian derivation. But in this case, where the soup is Ukrainian (and even Russians recognize it as Ukrainian), then there is a clear reason to choose Ukrainian and not Russian as the source of the word. We have to intelligently use our sources here on Wikipedia. The on-line source I have there because it shows the Yiddish addition of the "t" at the end for the most common English form. (The Webster's dictionary actually has "borsch" as the primary spelling from 1947, but the "t" has expanded into general use since then.) You've done a great amount of good work on this article, by the way. --Taivo (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Taivo and Kpalion. There are in fact two statements here:
1) What is the origin of the word borscht?
2) From what language was it adopted into Yiddish (from which it supposedly moved to English)?
As for the first question, the word is Proto-Slavic for hogweed. Modern beetroot-based borscht is apparently of Ukrainian origin, but it is not clear where the original hogweed-based versions of this soup appeared first. Gil Marks claims here that it first appeared in the northern part of Eastern Europe, possibly in Lithuania. Since he talks about an early medieval period (at least before the 16th century, when they started to grow modern beetroot), I suppose he meant the Grand Duchy of Lithuania which covered the territory of present-day Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania, and parts of Estonia, Poland, Russia, and Ukraine. With all this information, I don't see why the word borscht is ukrainian in origin. The fact they call the soup ukrainian (actually the modern version of the soup), does not mean that the word itself is Ukrainian in origin.
The answer to the 2nd question is also unclear. Jewish immigrants in the USA spoke mainly Yiddish but also Russian, Ukrainian, and probably mixed dialects like surzhyk. I also don't see a clear evidence that the word was adopted into Yiddish from Ukrainian. One could argue that the Ashkenazi Jews lived for many centuries in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, in particular also at the territory of modern Ukraine, before it was taken by Russia and the Pale of Settlement was formed, and thus they possibly had much less contact with Russian than with Ukrainian. But one needs a WP:RS on the historical development of Yiddish to make such statements. Without further sources, I think we should stick to what the dictionaries say, namely, that the Yiddish form was adopted from Ukrainian and/or Russian. --Off-shell (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree with everything Off-shell wrote. The Ukrainian origin of the soup does not necessarily imply a Ukrainian origin of its name in Yiddish and, indirectly, in English. Taivo may be (and probably is) right about the laziness of some lexicographers who assume a Russian origin of a word that may have been borrowed from any East Slavic language. But we shouldn't be cherry-picking our sources and if they disagree, we need to maintain a neutral point of view. I've got nothing against keeping the two references added by Taivo, but I also think we should put back the two references that were deleted, together with "or Russian". — Kpalion(talk) 22:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I checked some further details meanwhile. Gil Marks writes: "Beetroot soup (boreke borscht) first appeared in Jewish sources, pronounced borscht or borscht in Yiddish, towards the end of the 1500s in eastern Europe, corresponding to its initial usage in the region... Borscht was most fundamental among Jews in Ukraine and southern Poland..." Comparing this to the history of Ukrainian language: "After the fall of the Kievan Rus' as well as the Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia, the language" (Old East Slavic) "developed into a form called the Ruthenian language. The Modern Ukrainian language has been in common use since the late 17th century, associated with the establishment of the Cossack Hetmanate." So I think it is almost impossible that it was borrowed into Yiddish from Russian, but it is probably also incorrect to say that it was borrowed from Ukrainian. It was probably some form of Ruthenian language ("Western Russian" a predecessor of modern Belarusian, Rusyn and Ukrainian) which the "lazy" dictionary editors call "Ukrainian or Russian". I think the best we can do is to write "East Slavic" instead of "Ukrainian/Russian". --Off-shell (talk) 08:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Rather than "East Slavic", "Ruthenian" (the usual name for Old Western East Slavic) would be a better term and more commonly used (and is the title of the article about it). --Taivo (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that we need a reference that it was really Ruthenian. Otherwise it remains my original research. "East Slavic" is a general term which would cover Old East Slavic, Ruthenian, as well as modern Ukrainian, Russian and Belarusian. It is less specific but is in agreement with the sources we currently have. --Off-shell (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Let's go back to what our sources say. In the four sources considered so far, we've got the following etymologies:
Yiddish borsht; compare Ukrainian, Byelorussian, Russian borshch soup with red beets as ingredient; or directly < East Slavic (Dictionary.com)
Ruthenian isn't mentioned in any of them. I think the best thing we can do, without publishing our own original research, is to write that the Yiddish borsht derives from the word борщ (borshch), which is common to East Slavic languages, such as Ukrainian and Russian (and cite all or some of the above sources). Would this wording be acceptable to both of you? — Kpalion(talk) 21:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
No, sorry, that won't be acceptable, although it's getting closer and just needs a little tweaking. Including Russian is, as I have said before, default/lazy etymologizing. We have one reliable source (from the days well before electronic, click-the-button on-line posts) that clearly and unequivocally points to Ukrainian ("Little Russian") for the earlier English spelling of "borsch" or "borsh" (and I will add the exact quote to the note). We know that the "t" comes from Yiddish, we have a reliable source for that as well. I propose stating that "borsch", the earlier form in English, is from Ukrainian (sourced) and the later and presently most common form "borscht" is from Yiddish (also sourced). We don't necessarily have to link Ukrainian > Yiddish > English since none of our sources make that connection. We can leave in the Proto-Slavic etymology. --Taivo (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
So we have two English spellings: borsht borrowed from Yiddish and borsch borrowed directly from Slavic. I agree that we can leave out the etymology of the Yiddish word (and thus skip the discussion of Ruthenian), but I disagree that a source "from the days well before electronic, click-the-button on-line posts" is more reliable than modern sources. Moreover, looking at Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary: Eleventh Edition provided above by Kpalion, we find that it was first mentioned in English as late as 1808! At this time, Russian was already spoken in parts of Ukraine, and borscht was already known in Russia. Hence, if we are talking about the direct adoption into English (not via Yiddish), it could well have been from Russian too. And again, Taivo, your 1947 reference says: "A Little Russian ragout or soup" but it does not seem to say that the word was borrowed into English directly from Ukrainian. So if we are going to specify the etymology in detail, we should state that "borsch", the earlier form in English, was borrowed from Ukrainian or Russian, and the later and presently most common form "borscht" is from Yiddish. --Off-shell (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
You are incorrect, Off-shell. The second edition of Webster's exactly says that the English word came from Ukrainian--that's what the brackets mean in that edition: "comes from". In other words, unlike all the other sources that hedge about its origin or use the "default Cyrillic setting" of "Russian", the 1947 source specifically and unequivocally states that it came from Ukrainian, not Russian. And, unlike the "Collegiate Dictionary", which is abridged, the 1947 edition is the 10-inch-thick unabridged version that is widely considered to be Webster's best. --Taivo (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
OK, it was not clear to me what the brackets mean. As for the other argument, I cannot easily see that one version of Webster's dictionary is more accurate than another, even if it is bigger. However, I tried to dig further and to find the origin of these statements. Here, someone gives the source for apparently the first written mention of borsch in English (1808, as pointed above). Baron Campenhausen described it while visiting Kremenchuk. Here is a scan of this book. So, the question is what language was spoken in Kremenchuk at that time? I don't think the dictionary editors have any other means to determine it than we have. Here is the language distribution of Kremenchuk population in 1897 (the first census of the Russian Empire in languages): 47% Yiddish, 30% Ukrainian, 19% Russian. Can we definitely say, it was borrowed from Ukrainian? --Off-shell (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I think that the numbers are pretty clear, personally. There are some editors who would think that it's inappropriate synthesis, but since research is part of my real-world job description, I'm convinced. --Taivo (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
The census numbers tell us that we don't know whether it came from Ukrainian or Russian. Baron Campenhausen mentioned only Russian, but probably he couldn't distinguish between "Little Russian" and "Great Russian". It seems to me the dictionary editors were not "lazy". They studied the sources and understood, that it could have been any of the two languages. So "Ukrainian and Russian borshch" is the only statement we can make, and this will be according to the sources. BTW, the mention of borscht in this book seems to have been discovered rather recently; many dictionaries give 1884 for the first usage of the word. Not sure, whether in 1948 (the year of publication of the big dictionary which you refer to) this source was known. --Off-shell (talk) 07:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I continue to oppose the inclusion of "Russian" here. The census data is clear that the majority of Slavic speakers in your source spoke Ukrainian, the region of greatest contact between Yiddish and Eastern Slavic was in Ukrainian territory, the beet-based soup is Ukrainian in origin (even Russian sources assert that), and we have at least one major unabridged English dictionary (one of the most highly respected) unequivocally names Ukrainian. During our discussions here, it has become clear that the zone of contact was in the western East Slavic region. It's clear that we have to reject any source that only names "Russian" as using that term as a "default" Cyrillic option. If you won't accept my option of including just Ukrainian, then I would compromise with using Kpalion's wording with a slight tweak, "which is common to East Slavic languages, such as Ukrainian and Belorusian". --Taivo (talk) 12:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Taivo, I'm sorry, but this comment is below any academic standards, and I start to doubt your sincerity. Either bring new arguments, or surrender. We agreed before, that we treat the spelling borscht separately, as it came from Yiddish which in turn might have adopted it from Ruthenian but we have no source for that. So it was your proposal to make a separate statement on the older spelling borsch. So we traced the origin of it down to the primary source from which it is clear that both languages were present in the region of Kremenchuk with ratio 3:2, and hence we don't know whether it was Ukrainian or Russian or both. And the dictionary editors don't know it either, and therefore they put "Ukrainian or Russian". Now trying to defend your position, you start to bring Yiddish back into the discussion. In addition, your argument that one major unabridged English dictionary names only Ukrainian, is flawed, as several other dictionaries mention also Russian or even exclusively Russian, including another major one - the Oxford English Dictionary (OED, which calls itself "the definitive record of English language"). So far, I saw no convincing argument to leave Russian out, except your personal disfavour of it. --Off-shell (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
There is a very good reason to leave Russian out. The word entered Yiddish and the Western languages through contact with the western region of East Slavic--in other words the Belarusian and Ukrainian regions. That is a key factor here--western East Slavic. Thence into Yiddish and thence into the West. Yes, there is a minority of Russian speakers who are in the western areas, just as there are a minority of Scots speakers in Canada. So when you write that some First Nations language in Canada has borrowed a word from English, you don't look at Scots just because there happens to be a Scots minority. No. You assume the majority language unless there are compelling reasons otherwise. Thus, when borsch is borrowed from the western region of East Slavic, you don't assume (unless you follow lazy "Russian default" practices) Russian, you assume the majority languages of the area unless there are compelling reasons otherwise. There are no such compelling reasons here. --Taivo (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
We do not discuss the history of the Yiddish word anymore. We discussed it already above and we don't have to repeat it. We discuss the word borsch without t which was adopted directly from Slavic. Everything else you say is a repetion of your original argument that Russian overshadowed Ukrainian for historical reasons. This might be true in this case or not true. So far it remains your original opinion. I tried to check your statement and found that we cannot conclude it based on the primary source. The ratio of 3 to 2 cannot be interpreted in terms of "majority" and "minority", because the numbers are very close to each other. If it were 20 to 1, I could agree with you, but not for 3 to 2. Hence we have to stick to what the different dictionaries say. And just to make it clear once more: It does not matter that the soup originated in Ukraine and later went to Russia. The adoption into English took place so lately, that the word was already common in Russian. --Off-shell (talk) 09:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Dear Taivo and Off-shell, I think it's time to close this discussion. This is not the place to discuss the percentages of ethnic groups in one town and draw conculsions from there about the etymology of "borscht", because whatever conclusions we reach, they will be a result of our original research. What we're left with are dictionary references which we cannot simply accept or reject according to whether they fit our personal opinions. Ultimately, we may have to agree to disagree and accept that consensus doesn't require unanimity. Considering that Off-shell and I both remain unconvinced by Taivo's arguments against any mention of Russian as a possible source language for "borscht", I'm going to restore it, together with a mention of East Slavic as an umbrella term including both Russian and Ukrainian, and all of the dictionary sources used in this discussion so far. — Kpalion(talk) 23:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Ukrainian origin
Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Here's the issue: This is the English Wikipedia and the primary association of English-speaking readers of "borscht" is with the red beetroot variety. As such, that's where the lead needs to begin (just as the English form of the word is the title of the article). That's of Ukrainian origin. Then the second paragraph can move on into other, older forms of the soup that are virtually unknown to English speakers. The lead doesn't need to be in historical order, it needs to be in familiarity order for English readers so that they don't have to read into the second or third paragraph to find the information about the soup that they automatically associate with the article's name. "Car" is a clip of the word "carriage" which was once drawn by horses, but the article on cars shouldn't start with that. --Taivo (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
The 1st paragraph of the lede, as it reads now, makes an impression that all forms of borscht, or at least the most ancient one, originated in Ukraine, for which we seem to have no evidence. Any Wikipedia article must represent a WP:WORLDVIEW of the subject and avoid systemic bias. This is what the article in general currently does. As for the 1st paragraph, an unexperienced reader, who never saw borscht (just imagine how many English speakers in India saw it), will get exactly this impression. It must be made clear that it is the beetroot version which originated in Ukraine to avoid any confusion. Please, rewrite it as you wish, e.g. like "the best known variety in the English-speaking world, the redbeet borscht, originated in Ukraine" or whatever, but remove this confusion from the text. --Off-shell (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't mind emphasizing that the most common variety of borscht encountered by English readers (the vast majority of whom are in North America and Britain, of course) is beetroot and originates in Ukraine. And then the second paragraph can talk about its origin in other forms with less definite points of origin in eastern Europe. But the first paragraph should address the thing which is most commonly encountered by English-speaking readers. This is why article titles are based on most common English form, not on other criteria. --Taivo (talk) 00:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I've rewritten the lead again, trying this time to accord due prominence to the Ukrainian origin of beetroot borscht by mentioning it already in the first paragraph rather than the distant second. Please note that the previous version, after Taivo's edits, was self-contradictory: it first defined borscht as a "a beetroot-based soup" only to say that "varieties that do not use beetroot also exist" within the same paragraph. — Kpalion(talk) 11:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Your rewrite looks fine. Thank you for understanding that we must give the most commonly-known beetroot variety prominence. --Taivo (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
What is your credible proof that the Borscht is of Ukrainian origin? The article clearly states that the Slavs all had this soup for long. Not to mention that the lands of modern day Ukraine were either Poland, or Russia, so when and where did the birscht originate in the Ukraine? --Szalony Mnich (talk) 00:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I will assume that you have read this Talk page and the relevant discussions about naming, Slavic roots, etc. You may not have seen the archives (since the link was hard for me to find) here and here. --Taivo (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Spelling
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Borsch should be spelled without a "t". The Borscht variant is Yiddish.101.98.74.13 (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if it's from Yiddish. It is the most common English spelling. This is the English Wikipedia and we spell words in English per WP:COMMONNAME. --Taivo (talk) 04:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
It does matter and the fact it "doesn't matter" tell a lot about Wikipedia. And stop censoring the discussion page. It's not your business. --Abatishchev (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
No, it doesn't matter and the fact that you are ranting about it means that you don't understand that this is the English Wikipedia. Read the word very carefully: English. In English the word is spelled "borscht" because we borrowed the word from Yiddish, not from Ukrainian. Facts are facts and that says everything about Wikipedia: facts are paramount, not unscientific and counterfactual pressure. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
GA Review
Latest comment: 8 years ago41 comments2 people in discussion
usually include cabbage, carrots, onions, potatoes and tomatoes. I wonder if you need links here.
As this is a culinary article, I've tried to link all culinary items. I know onions and tomatoes may seem too familiar to be linked, but I make a point of keeping in mind that this article may be read by someone to whom European cookery is as exotic as Thai or Indonesian cuisine is to me. I just don't want to guess which of my everyday ingredients will be unfamiliar to them. — Kpalion(talk) 15:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Sainsf<^>Feel at home 12:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
As the article is quite long, I've begun some of the longer sections with one or two introductory sentences (sort of mini-leads), which summarize the sourced information provided throughout the given section. I believe it would be redundant to repeat the citations there. — Kpalion(talk) 15:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I see. I hope others do not litter the article with citation needed tags... Sainsf<^>Feel at home 11:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
white cabbage, carrots, parsley root, potatoes, onions, and tomatoes. I don't think we need to link carrots, potatoes, onions and tomatoes.
See above. — Kpalion(talk) 15:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
allspice, celery, parsley, marjoram, hot peppers The "celery" link here is a duplicate.
In the first instance I meant the celery root (celeriac), in the other – the stalks. I made it clear now. — Kpalion(talk) 15:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Varieties
include a monastic Lenten borscht What does "monastic" mean here?
It means that the recipe was devised by monks. Perhaps you could suggest a clearer wording? — Kpalion(talk) 11:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I can't think of an alternate wording... we can keep this. Sainsf<^>Feel at home 12:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
In addition to the hearty, thick borschts described above, I am afraid this sounds a bit like a cookery book, somewhat promotional of Polish cuisine. It would be better to remove "hearty". Let the reader decide how the borschts look.
A minor point. (flotsky borshch[f]) We typically put it like this: (flotsky borshch)[f] Same for (pork is never used[30]) and 'sour soup'[j]) There are some more instances in the following sections.
In the summertime, cold borscht is a popular It is not clear if we are still in Poland.
We're still in Eastern Europe, more generally. The climate is similar throughout the region. Do you think this needs to be clarified? — Kpalion(talk) 11:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think so, I expect anyone into the article should understand this. I was just not very sure, so sought to confirm it. Sainsf<^>Feel at home 12:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
The mixture has a distinctive lively pink color "lively" may be an overstatement, just "distinctive" would do.
Why is "e" of "Eastern" in caps in Eastern Europe?
It's the name of a cultural-geographic region. Our article, Eastern Europe uses the same capitalization. — Kpalion(talk) 11:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
While the deep red color of beetroot borscht may bring blood to the minds of the uninitiated Sounds a bit unencyclopedic, can we say "While the deep red color of beetroot borscht may remind the layman/novice of blood"?
The Mennonites are a group of Dutch or German religious dissidents who settled in Poland and Russia before migrating to North America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Not relevant to our purpose, links are there to inform the reader on this.
but a range of more involved sides exists as well. Source?
This is meant as an introduction to the following two paragraphs, where the more involved sides are described (and cited). — Kpalion(talk) 12:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
The Slavs collected hogweed in May What season would that be? Summer? May be a helpful addition.
I would think it's quite obvious from the context that we're talking about the northern hemisphere, where May corresponds to late spring. If you're convinced that this needs clarification, how would you suggest to phrase it? — Kpalion(talk) 12:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
No rewords needed, I was just not sure if my idea of the climate is correct, so I confirmed it. Sainsf<^>Feel at home 12:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Beets (Beta vulgaris), Is it not too late to introduce beet? I think we can do without its scientific name here.
Beetroot is linked early in the article, but it takes you to an article about the taproot of a specific cultivar of the plant. Here, in the history section, we introduce Beta vulgaris as a wild plant ("a plant native to the Mediterranean Basin") and follow with the history of its domestication ("was already grown in antiquity...") and development of modern cultivars ("Beet cultivars with round, red, sweet taproots, known as beetroots, were not reliably reported until the 12th century..."). — Kpalion(talk) 12:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Sainsf<^>Feel at home 12:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
In culture
According to Meek Who is he/she?
"James Meek, a British correspondent in Kiev and Moscow," has been already introduced in the last paragraph of the history section. — Kpalion(talk) 12:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Slight paraphrasing possible. Check for details here.
It looks like these are all false positives. The article contains several direct quotations, which are clearly marked as such and attributed. — Kpalion(talk) 15:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Images: The article looks a bit overladen with images.
Well, I disagree. I think the number of pictures is just enough to illustrate the diversity of colors, textures and possible ways of serving the soup. They were all carefully picked from a much larger number of borscht pictures we have at Commons. The way the article looks will depend heavily on your screen settings, but I haven't noticed a problem with text being sandwiched between images. — Kpalion(talk) 12:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any squashing of the text. It is your choice as you should know what is best for the article. :) I guess I was stunned at such a gallery of beautiful images because I don't come across such vibrant articles very often. Sainsf<^>Feel at home 12:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
That should be it. I am satisfied with your replies till now. These done, I would be happy to promote this beautiful article. Cheers, Sainsf<^>Feel at home 10:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Kpalion, you have been very quick and clear in your response. I believe this article is ready for promotion. Glad to pass this. Cheers! Sainsf<^>Feel at home 13:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing this article, Sainsf! I'm glad you liked it. — Kpalion(talk) 17:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Soviet government-sponsored cookbooks that promoted a unified Soviet cuisine
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Off-shell, this is about this edit. The focus in this context is on cookbooks that "promoted a unified Soviet cuisine" and thus helped forge the common assumption that borscht is a Russian dish. We've got sources that say just that about two specific cookbooks: Burlakoff mentions The Book of Tasty and Healthy Food, while Mack & Surina mention Directory of Recipes and Culinary Production. We don't have any such external source about Cookery, only a self-referential citation of Cookery itself. Do the authors of this book actually write in their book that they wish to promote a unified Soviet cuisine? If they do, could you please provide the page number? If not, then I'm afraid its mention should be removed from this paragraph as original research. — Kpalion(talk) 15:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Kpalion. The preface of Cookery mentions several institutes of the Soviet Academy of Sciences which refereed this book and then writes: "The Ministry of trade of the USSR proposed to Gostorgizdat (the publishing house) to publish this edition as the main manual for cooks in Soviet cookery and culinary art." So the book states itself that it should be the main reference work in Soviet cookery. Furthermore, the first section is titled "The Basics of Rational Nutrition". Later on, there is a section "Remarks on cookery" where it discusses in particular ethnic cuisines (pp. 31-32). It does not reject the ethnic cuisines and says that "they existed and will exist", but "it is necessary to underline, that cookery is one of the ... least isolated parts of national culture. The mutual penetration and mutual influence of national cuisines always took place and takes place, ... and allows us to talk about, e.g., the common Caucasian and finally about the common Soviet cookery. Soviet cookery is composed of commonly known dishes... Russian pirogi, Ukrainian borschts, Uzbek pilafs, Georgian shashliks, Armenian dolma, Azerbaijani piti, ..." I think this corresponds exactly to the sentence here. --Off-shell (talk) 08:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
OK, Off-shell, I will add this page range (pp. 31-32) to the citation. Thanks! — Kpalion(talk) 10:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Borscht. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
NAn editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Borscht. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Nothing whatsoever from a Russian source after 2014 concerning Ukraine should be trusted. None of your on-line sources are authoritative about the origin of food. --Taivo (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
And you need to read more carefully. The source for the "Russian" comment from etymonline is from 1884. Of course, an 1884 source is going to say "Russian" because Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire at the time. That does not preclude a Ukrainian origin simply because Ukraine was within the boundaries of the Russian Empire in 1884. --Taivo (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
And the Oxford entry has nothing to do with the origin of the food because its reference to "Russian borshch" has to do with the word and not the item. --Taivo (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
This topic has been discussed at various times at [1]. You should examine that archive because there are superior references listed there to your post-2014 Russian propaganda websites and two on-line dictionaries. --Taivo (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
First of all this is not about Russia, its about the fact that the origin of this soup is clearly disputed and therefor the article shouldnt credit any country at the infobox. So you say any source of Russian language cant be trusted since 2014, yet does the same apply for Western and Ukrainian sources for pretty much anything on this site? Thats a baseless and racist argument to make. Both Russian websites are cooking sites, and they actually go deeper than any source i have seen, giving evidence that the soup has origins as far as back to the Greco Romans which this article is lacking in the history section by the way, and should be added there.
If i read the archives, there is also a lot of discussion about Ukrainians pushing their Pro-Ukrainian narrative by @Peter_Isotalo before the crimean crisis too.
And the Oxford site is an indicator, it shows that the name Borscht derives from the Russian name borscht and not the other way around, we are talking about Oxford here who has an authority about the English language. And yes its true Ukraine was part of the Russia Empire, but so was Russia and many other territories of the Kieavan-Rus when this soup was supposed to have originated. There is no specific area that can be attributed where borscht was invented.
Also 2 of 3 of the sources that state that the soup is from Ukrainian origin are books which i and other people dont have access to.--Crossswords (talk) 03:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
It's not our problem if you don't have access to books. Get them through interlibrary loan. That's what the rest of us do when a book is cited that we don't own or isn't on-line. And the Merriam-Webster dictionary of English (unabridged) listed the word "borshch" (pre-1991) as being "Little Russian" (aka, Ukrainian), not Russian. Unabridged Merriam-Webster is just as authoritative for English as is the Oxford. Indeed it is more authoritative than the on-line simplification of Oxford. But since "borshch" is identical in Russian and Ukrainian, using lazy etymology and just saying "Russian" because you don't know "Ukrainian" isn't authoritative. (We've also discussed this before.) Wikipedia, thankfully, insists on reliable sources, not "on-line sources" to back up its assertions. There is quite sufficient evidence from reliable sources that borsch is of Ukrainian origin (even from pre-2014 Russian and Soviet sources). --Taivo (talk) 07:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Interesting article
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
TaivoLinguist, hope all is well. I see you reverted my edit here. I am curious why you have reverted it. Isn't this dish associated with the Eastern Slavs? My issue with pointing to modern-day Ukraine is anachronism. Borscht existed much before the birth of the modern-day nation of Ukraine. Although, it was invented, without a doubt, in the land that makes modern-day Ukraine. I thought to put Eastern Slav will be more neutral and accurate for a new reader. We have Ukraine as the place of origin in the template. Let me know what you think. Thanks! (Highpeaks35 (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC))
Also, I made an edit here to neutral geography, because it does not reference modern nations or nationalities. Let me know about that as well. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC))
I don't object to the neutral geographic reference in the first sentence. But "neutralizing" the origin reference isn't based on reliable sources. Even Russian cookbooks call the country of origin "Ukraine" when they listed the country of origin before 2014. There are sufficient reliable sources that use the term "Ukraine" that it is not an issue. It was invented in Ukraine. The Second Edition of Webster's Unabridged Dictionary from the middle of the 20th century even lists its origin as "Little Russia" in the entry on "borscht". It is not uncommon for Wikipedia to list the modern country names even when "anachronistic" because it makes it easier for readers to locate the origin on a modern map. They will never find "Eastern Slavs" on a map. Indeed, it wasn't all of the Eastern Slavs who invented borscht, just the Ukrainian ones. --Taivo (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
TaivoLinguist, thanks for clarifying. Yes, WP:RS is paramount, I agree with you. Also, thanks for agreeing with my edit to replace "Russia" to North Asia. I find putting a geographic term much more fitting for a dish that is found among citizens of many nationalities and now popular across the world. All the best. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC))
Second sentence
Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
I have a little concern about the second sentence. It seems a little confusing. The variety most often associated *with the name in English* is of Ukrainian origin. Is *with the name in English* really necessary? It is somewhat confusing, especially for new reader(s). If *with the name in English* is needed, can we put it in as a note? I propose: The variety most often associated is of Ukrainian origin. We can put a blurb on a note about the details of the reasons "why" -- with reference. Let me know what everyone thinks. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC))
TaivoLinguist, let me know what you think. Or what recommendation(s) you have. Look forward to it. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 04:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC))
Without "with the name in English", "the variety most often associated" makes no sense. "Associated" requires a prepositional phrase beginning with the preposition "with". The sentence as it stands is several years old and is based on WP:CONSENSUS. This is, of course, the English Wikipedia, so the focus is always on the meaning of the term in the English language and in English culture. --Taivo (talk) 05:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Highpeaks35, I wrote this sentence and will be happy to discuss how to make it clearer. What I was trying to say is that while there are many variants of the soup, it's the Ukrainian beetroot version that English speakers usually think of when talking about borscht. Could you please suggest a less confusing way to express the same piece of information? — Kpalion(talk) 11:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Kpalion, thank you for your reply. Let me think about it. To be honest, even I had to read it twice to fully grasp it. As such, let me think on it with the points you provided to link the two. I will reply hopefully by today or tomorrow with a proposal. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC))
How about: The variety most often associated with global cuisine,[note 1] is of Ukrainian origin... Again, we can tweak with it a lot. @TaivoLinguist and Kpalion: let me know what recommendation(s) you have and any constructive criticism. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC))
There's two things I would object to here: one is equating the Anglosphere with global cuisine. And the other is that I find it somewhat clumsy to relegate a fragment of a sentence to a footnote. How about this? In English, the word "borscht" is most often associated with the soup's variant of Ukrainian origin, made with beetroots as one of the main ingredients, which give the dish its distinctive red color. The same name, however, is also used for a wide selection of sour-tasting soups without beetroots, such as sorrel-based green borscht, rye-based white borscht and cabbage borscht. — Kpalion(talk) 08:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Kpalion's version is superior since the issue is what the word "borscht" means in English to English-speaking readers. It's going to (perhaps) mean something slightly different in Polish to Polish-speaking readers. --Taivo (talk) 10:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Kpalion, I love this latest revision of yours. It is simple and goes to the point, without any confusion to a new reader. I suggest it be changed to the new version proposed by Kpalion. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC))
Done. Thank you both for your input. — Kpalion(talk) 15:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Kpalion, please explain to me how the fact that beetroot borscht was invented in Ukraine is relevant to the etymology of the word? Especially as Ukrainian was already mentioned earlier in the paragraph. Remember, this section is solely about the word, not the actual food. --Khajidha (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
It shows the link between the origin of the word and the origin of the object the word describes. The word didn't spread in complete isolation from the food itself. — Kpalion(talk) 23:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
There is already a section about the origin of the food and its spread. Having this sentence in this section is redundant and disorganized. --Khajidha (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Khajidha, sorry for not having the time to reply sooner. I just saw your most recent revision of the Etymology section and I'm perfectly fine with it. — Kpalion(talk) 11:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. After looking it over some more and letting it percolate in the back of my mind, I realized that there was something valid there but it wasn't arranged as well as it could be. Before it just seemed tacked on, now it seems more integral to the topic of the paragraph. --Khajidha (talk) 11:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Reverted reference addition
Latest comment: 4 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion
@TaivoLinguist: objecting is one thing, but if the lack of references and WP:BRD is as good as the argumentation gets for tossing away a perfectly good reference, then asking to get a consensus sounds simply absurd. You request that I add the reference in a "Latvian entry wherever that is", but don't seem to care to specify where would that be, even after I point out there isn't one. –Turaids (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
@Turaids: I object to adding unnecessary references into the infobox. Infoboxes are strictly for basic information, not for excessive argumentation. I don't know the article by heart, but surely there's a place in the text (anywhere from the lead to the end) where Latvia is mentioned as having borscht as a primary part of its cuisine. If Latvia isn't mentioned in the text, then it obviously should be (since it's in the infobox). Add a note about it and put a reference. Don't just throw a reference into the infobox if there isn't actual text in the article about Latvia. The only references in the infobox at this time are after listing Ukraine as the country of origin because it's been controversial over time and Russian nationalists are constantly trying to remove the reference to Ukraine. Once you start adding references to each country in the infobox, the infobox quickly becomes unreadable. By all means add a reference to Latvian cuisine in the text. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
It would be unnecessary if Latvia was already referenced (or even mentioned) somewhere else in the text. If I had found a better place myself I wouldn't be asking for you to elaborate on your request. I always can force it into a sentence like "In the Soviet Union, borscht was one of the most popular everyday dishes", but would that be actually better? I don't think so. –Turaids (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
There are references to Poland and Lithuania, why not add something about Latvia? At the very least something like "Soviet Union, in western republics like Lithuania, Latvia, etc.". You mention that you edit the Latvian Wikipedia. What does the "borscht" article say about Latvia there? Add something to this English article in order to justify a reference by name. What does the reference you want to add say about Latvian borscht? Is it different than Lithuanian borscht in some way? Is it a variant? Or is it just the same? If it's the same then that deserves a comment in the Lithuanian section. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
My reference points out borscht as a popular soup in the Soviet Latvian cuisine, but it does not go into the level of detail as the references on Lithuania or Poland. And the only thing Latvian Wikipedia has on borscht in relation to Latvia is a questionable and unreferenced statement that Latvian beet soup is a variety of borscht. –Turaids (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I think Latvia should be removed from the infobox and the categories altogether. It was added there by a drive-by anonymous user and doesn't appear in the body of the article at all. The paper that Turaids was in good faith trying to add as a reference [2] actually confirms that borscht is seen in Latvia as a Soviet-era import and not really part of traditional Latvian cuisine. — Kpalion(talk) 16:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I also have my doubts about whether that little booklet passes the reliable source test in even the broadest reading of the policy. And you're right--if borscht was a Soviet-era Latvian food, then it shouldn't be in the list anyway. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
OK, Latvia removed. — Kpalion(talk) 21:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
The many influences make it hard sometimes to draw the line of what is and isn't "Latvian cuisine". As for the booklet, the style may not be academic, but the factual basis is accurate, so I don't see any problem with using it as a reliable reference, but that's a whole other discussion. –Turaids (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
If borscht is, indeed, a full-fledged part of Latvian cuisine, then you should be able to find more reliable sources that state that. There should be multiple cookbooks that focus exclusively on Latvian cuisine that include a recipe for borscht, not just a brief marginal source that ambiguously includes borscht as "Soviet". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, Latvians probably started making beet soup as early as the 17th century when beets were introduced, but the ambiguity lies in whether that counts as "borscht" or not, which by the foreign name alone sets itself as something "non-Latvian" and wouldn't probably be found in a Latvian cookbook. But to verify that I'd have to order a book online. –Turaids (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
A "foreign name" alone doesn't disqualify a dish from being part of the local cuisine. Most of the countries of Eastern Europe have a name for beet soup that is borrowed from the source that they got the idea from. Barszcz in Polish, for example is directly from Ukrainian борщ, but it's still part of the Polish cuisine. The same is true for Lithuanian barščiai, Yiddish borscht, Romanian borș, and others. In Latvia, borščs might very well be a constituent of contemporary Latvian cuisine, even with the "foreign name". That's the question that you need to answer. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 09:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Estonian cuisine
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 3 years ago17 comments4 people in discussion
As far as we know Borscht is of Don Cossack origin, who are not related to Ukraine. Also it was introduced in 18th century in country known as the Russian Empire it's inculusive for modern day Russia and Ukraine.
--Kovanja (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
If this discussion results in a new WP:CONSENSUS then the text in the article can change. Until then, Wikipedia policy is that the status quo remain in place. Do not change the article text again until this discussion is over. Here are some of the previous discussions: [3], [4]. This discussion even quotes a Soviet-era cookbook that specifically says "Ukrainian borsch" as a component of Soviet cuisine. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
And about that Russian Empire versus Ukraine. We don't label geographic locations by their historic names, but by their contemporary ones. Thus, "Scotland", not "Kingdom of Scotland". Poland was also part of the Russian Empire, but historic locations in Poland are labelled as "Poland", not "Russian Empire". I live in a part of the US that was part of the Republic of Mexico until 1848, but locations, even old ones related to the region before 1848, are labelled with the current name of the state, not "Republic of Mexico". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
I wonder whether Kovanja has ever read the "History Today" article they used as reference. It says that "borscht is not Russian at all" (literal quote) and the Don Cossack origin is just a legend. Besides, it really reads like an abridged paraphrase of this Wikipedia article, so it can hardly be used as a reference here. — Kpalion(talk) 17:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Kingdom of Poland was historically known location within the Russian Empire for the Russian Tsar did have also a title of Polish duke, Scotland was known even as a part of the Great Britain. Ukraine did not exist until 20th century. The Soviet Union considered Ukrainian borders far beyond it's true historial borders. Poland is labeled as a part of the Russian Empire in every article. Example birthplace of Marie Skłodowska Curie
Contry of origin was the Russian Empire not Ukraine.
--Kovanja (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
"Russian Empire" is far too broad a label for this, encompassing territory from the Vistula to the Pacific, especially when many specialized sources focus "Russian Empire" down to "Ukraine" or "Ukrainian" (or "Little Russian") for the origin of the soup and for the name. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 05:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Borscht is older than very existence of Ukraine, it's origined from the Russian Empire.
--Kovanja (talk) 08:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
You still miss the point. "Russian Empire" is too big, "Ukraine" narrows down the focus and many reliable sources make that precise specification, using "Ukraine", "Ukrainian", and even "Little Russian" (in older sources) to specify its origin within the conglomerate that was the Russian Empire. It did not originate in "Russia" or "Poland" or "Finland" or "Siberia", it originated in "Ukraine". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
It seems you miss the point. Russian Empire is name for the country including most of modern day Ukraine. Ukrainian nation did not exist until early 20th century, and it was fabrciated in Austrian city of Galitsia by nationalist Mikhaylo Hrushevsky. Far from Kiev and territorium we call today Ukraine. Little Russia was specific governorate within the Russian Empire, next to Kiev govvernorate and the New Russia Governorate.
Correct term is Russian Empire.
Ukraine is also 'too big' and with no historical borders.
--Kovanja (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean that there is a consensus to change the existing text. Stop your unilateral changes until you have established a consensus. I do not agree with your opinion, so the status quo stands for now. You haven't convinced me that "Russian Empire" is an appropriate label for origin. "Ukraine" is still superior since it marks a precise location for the origin of beetroot borsch and it is mentioned specifically in a number of reliable sources. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
And you obviously ignored User:Kpalion's previous comment that the "History Today" web article can hardly be considered a reliable source. And the "new source" you posted isn't any better. Read WP:RS to learn what reliable sources are. If written after 2014, any Russian website must be considered suspect for anti-Ukrainian bias. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry guys but history does not care of consensus. There is no Ukraine until 20th century. Are called Ukraine or even a state did not exist.
It must be changed.
--Kovanja (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
You may not care about consensus and reliable sources, but Wikipedia does. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Give me reliable source proving very existence of Ukraine in 18th and 19th centuries.
--Kovanja (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)--Kovanja (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I have provided you with sufficient reliable sources that say that borscht is a Ukrainian dish or was developed in Ukraine. You've provided nothing. This is the end of the issue. Reliable sources and consensus win over your continued harangue. There is nothing more that need be said here. The status quo text remains because you have convinced no one. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Ukraine did not appeared until 20th century. It was hardly created in Ukraine. source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kovanja (talk • contribs) 13:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
@Kovanja: In 1657, in a letter from Lyakhochestritsky from Volyn to Ivan Vyhovsky, the name Ukrainians is used:"He says: if it were, then it is unnecessary, Ukrainians together with Moscow ...".[5] In 1668, Hetman Ivan Bryukhovetsky with all the Zaporozhian Army, wrote in a letter to the Novogrodsk Pan centurion and Otaman with the army and to all residents; in his letter, Ivan Bryukhovetsky wrote about the homeland of Ukraine, and about the Ukrainian people, and about the enemies of the Muscovites. The Ukrainian people act in an ethnic sense, as it is written in a row with other nations and is opposed to: Moskals (Russians) and Lyakhs (Poles).[6] In 1668, Petro Sukhovienko, the koshevoy hetman of the entire Army of Zaporozhye and Right-Bank Ukraine, wrote in his letter: "to all my uterine brotherhood to my Ukrainian and on the other side of the Dnieper to the Christian people who are gaining".[7] "Mother dear motherland, poor Ukraine", "my brotherhood, all Orthodox people living in Ukraine".[8] Hetman Ivan Samoilovich also calls Ukraine - "our fatherland".[9] In 1677, the koshevoy otaman Ivan Sirko wrote in his letter: "Lyakhi ... with countless Turkish and Tatar forces ... the glorious inhabitants of the motherland of our Ukraine, the Ukrainians did not burn us under their region..."[10] Engraving by Khmelnitsky, performed by the Flemish artist Wilhelm Gondius, 1651 “Bohdan Chmielnicki Exercitus Zaporovieñ. Præfectus, Belli Servilis Autor Rebelliumq. Cosaccorum et Plebis Ukrayneñ Dux"("Bohdan Khmelnytsky. Troops of Zaporozhye Commander-in-Chief, War of the Peasant Initiator, Rebellious Cossacks and the People of the Ukrainian Prince")[11].VladOz (talk) 15:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Early references for hogweed
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This 16th century reference may be integrated into the history section discussing hogweed usage by Slavs:
John Gerard, Herbal (1597), chapter "Of Cowe Parsenep. Chap. 377", p. 855: "The people of Polonia, & Lituania, use to make drinke with the decoction of this herbe, and leven or some other thing made of meale, which is used insteede of beere, and other ordinarie drinke."
This book is in fact an unaknowledged English translation of an earlier Dutch book. There is the same sentence in that Dutch book:
Rembert Dodoens, Des Cruydboeks (1554, in Dutch and Latin), p. 565: "Die van Polen ende van Lituanien sieden desen Beerenclauw in water daer toe heefdeech of iet anders dijsghelijck doende/ ende drincken dat in plaetsen van bier oft van anderen ghemeynen dranck."
Off-shell, this quote from Gerard is already integrated into the article ("Diversification" section, paragraph 2). I'm not sure whether the fact that it's an unacknowledged translation from Dutch is relevant here (you can find this information in the John Gerard article). — Kpalion(talk) 21:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
NYT story
Latest comment: 3 years ago19 comments4 people in discussion
Little new here; most of it is already covered by this Wikipedia article. Borscht being on the UNESCO list will certainly make a nice addition to the article, but only when it actually happens. — Kpalion(talk) 09:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
I have to say I'm really impressed by this article. Quality and depth are a couple notches better than most WP articles. GA-RT-22 (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
This has little to nothing to do with an article in the English WP. The sources stated in the article clearly specify the following: "Borscht is a soup made with red beets popular in Northwestern Asia and Eastern Europe." "The name "borscht" comes from Proto-Slavic word for hogweed." "The most known variant, which includes dill, lard and garlic, has Ukrainian roots." To me, if The borscht was invented in Ukraine, then it did not exist prior to 1917 (at least, if not 1991), which is obviously false. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
That "1917" is nonsense. Ukraine ("Little Russia") existed as a region of the Russian Empire long before 1917. But even without the name "Ukraine", or its independence, the origin of borscht was clearly in the territory that is now called "Ukraine" so to name its origin as any other place is disingenuous POV pushing. While not a reliable source, my wife, who is a native Russian speaker, who is sitting next to me in the office and asked me what I was writing about, remarked, "Everyone knows that borsch is from Ukraine, shi is from Russia." --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
So, which was it? Ukraine, Little Russia or Russian Empire? I agree with the statement ″the origin of borscht was clearly in the territory that is now called "Ukraine"″, that is exactly what the "Origin" line should state. I proposed Kievan Rus and Rzechpospolita, but you keep reverting although, once again, the sources don't state either of that information. Why you bring the whole "POV" point to your argumentation simply loses me. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
That's like saying that the human species didn't originate in Africa, because nobody called it "Africa" back then. — Kpalion(talk) 20:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Africa is a continent of geographical importance, whereas borscht originated not in a particular region, but rather among a distinct clade of Eastern Slavs. However, they were not called Ukrainians. FFS, the Origin section itself states its source as a book from the Russian Empire as first mention. You all are eager to revert, but not to read, for some reason. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
We don't use old names, but modern English ones. It's a very simple issue. We all agree, it appears, that borscht originated in the same place. The issue seems to be that you, Why..., object to using a modern name for that place for some reason. We have, indeed, read the sources, but you don't seem to know that we can, for the purposes of informing our readers, use a name that our readers recognize. Our readers should not have to be forced to wander away from the article searching for some name they've never heard of when we can keep them focused on the task at hand by using the modern name of the same place--Ukraine--without fanfare. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
When it comes to clarification, precision is more important than overall information. You are suggesting, in a similar example, the following phrase: "the aqueduct was invented in Italy" instead of "the aqueduct was invented in the Roman Empire" simply because that would facilitate the reading. In other words, you disregard factual statements for the sake of simplicity. Unfortunately, that does not work in the English WP as far as I'm aware (maybe it does pass in the Simple Wikipedia, though). Saying "borscht was invented in Ukraine" to the majority of readers (not just me) implies that the said soup was invented in a time period no earlier than 1917, and I vouch that people reading this article do have basing knowledge about country names. Moreover, I would be prone to see confusion for someone who would expect to read "borscht was invented in Russia" and find out that it was, in fact, not invented in Russia. Oh, and another thing. Please do not use my nickname in such a way as it is simply impolite. If you prefer to refer to me in any way, then please copy and paste it accordingly, in case you don't feel like typing it whole. Friendly advice, of course :) --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
First of all STOP EDIT WARRING and leave the original text as is until you built a new consensus for the change. That's Wikipedia policy per WP:BRD. Learn it and practice it.
Second, your argument is no more than WP:IDLI with regard to the use of Ukraine, which is the modern English term for the region that was formerly known as "Little Russia", et al., all of which terms are patently offensive to the people of Ukraine. We avoid causing linguistic offense when possible. Also, please provide your evidence for "the majority of readers". And readers who think that borscht was invented in Russia will come here to find out that they are wrong. That's the purpose of Wikipedia--to correct error. Borscht was not invented "in the Russian Empire", but in a specific region--Ukraine. Your argument simply isn't convincing as it is pushing a recent pro-Russian and anti-Ukrainian POV. The usage of "Ukraine" per WP:CONSENSUS has been stable in this article for several years now and it was listed as one of Wikipedia's best with that text. Until you can convince a consensus of editors here that your anti-Ukrainian POV is preferable, then do not change the text just because you don't like it. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps it's also worth adding that the name "Ukraine" didn't just suddenly pop up in 1917. In fact, it dates back to the 12th century. Of course, most of that time it didn't exist as an independent political entity. But that doesn't matter here, because this article is about soup, not politics. Ukraine has existed, for the last eight centuries, as a cultural-geographic region and this is what matters. — Kpalion(talk) 23:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that Whydoesitfeelsogood's edits make the lead and the infobox inconsistent with the rest of the article. But to notice that, one would have to actually read beyond the table of contents. — Kpalion(talk) 23:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Question: how can I participate in this specific talk without my comments "interspersing"? Thanks, --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 03:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
You reference another's comments in your own, you don't break them up into pieces. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 10:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Okay, this is my reply to your previous comment, once again:
First of all, this applies to everyone reverting my edits as well. I seldom revert edits myself because I believe that if I made an edit which a bunch of other editors are not okay with, they can come and at least try to change it minimally, instead of reverting things with a simple click. I only do so if I see blatant vandalism going on in an edit. Also, it behooves any reverter (not the original editor) to explain themselves as to why they decided to revert edits in the summary. Just saying. Second, citing sources which state that a certain dish is of "Ukrainian origin" vs that dish having actually been "invented in Ukraine" is called literal accuracy and has nothing to do with offending whomsoever. A source which makes statements many Ukrainians can find potentially offensive still remains a source so long as it's reliable and not blacklisted on WP. The name "Ukraine" comes from proto-Slavic "ukrayina" which literally translates as "borderland" and, while can be traced back to czarist times, certainly does not predate the appearance of the word "borscht". Therefore, the statement "borscht was invented in Ukraine" is both anachronistic and absurd, no matter how you put it. If changing it offends whomsoever, well then, let's just start challenging all of WP info just for the sake of not offending anyone, shall we? All in all, I'm okay with not editing the article so far, so long as we could keep a discussion open here. I hope your goal is to not just repel me from editing it, but to actually consent to a factual accuracy regarding the lede.
It is not a requirement when reverting an edit to "change it minimally" to accommodate you. You need to read WP:BRD to understand the process of "edit, get reverted, discuss and build a consensus before editing again". If borscht was invented by "Ukrainians", then it was invented in Ukraine, just as if it had been invented by "Poles", then it was invented in "Poland". If those Ukrainians had been expats living in New York, that's a different matter, but when a source from the Renaissance says "Ukrainians did X", then the simple implication in English is that those Ukrainians were living in Ukraine, whether Ukraine was under the boot of some other named entity or not. I have no interest in preventing you from editing the article, but if your only edit is to remove the word "Ukraine" from where it properly belongs, that's not going to be acceptable when the sources are crystal clear that borscht was invented by Ukrainians in their land, which is called "Ukraine". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Whydoesitfeelsogood, regarding your claim that "the name 'Ukraine' ... certainly does not predate the appearance of the word 'borscht'", it is, firstly, not true, and, secondly, irrelevant for the question of where beetroot borscht was invented (because inventing a thing is not the same as coining a word for it). In any case, the earliest references to beetroot borscht are from the early 19th century, long after the territory known as Ukraine got its name. — Kpalion(talk) 20:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Which sources are you basing this on? Or do you mean "beetroot borscht" as a specific calling? But even by the early 19th century, that territory was referred to as "part of the Russian Empire". By the way, I also edited Shchi so that it follows suit and doesn't state that it was invented in "9th century Russia". --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Etymology: *bhr̥sti- < *bhares-/bhores-
Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
ultimately from Proto-Indo-European*bhr̥sti- < *bhares-/bhores- 'point, stubble'
Is the use of the "<" symbol an error? If it is not, what does it signify?-- Toddy1(talk) 09:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I think it's an error because the first form is the earliest and the others are derivatives (although not marked as to what languages they represent). At the least the arrow needs to be reversed. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
This etymology from PIE to Proto-Slavic is badly written. I'll have to take a more detailed look to get it straight. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
According to Pokorny, the earliest form is bhares- : bhores- 'point, stubble', from which derives, among others, the form bhr̥sti-, bhorsti-, from which come: "O.Ind. bhr̥ṣṭí-ḥ f. “prong, spike, cusp, peak, edge, point“ = Gmc. *bursti- in O.Ice. burst f. “bristle, ridge of the roof“, O.E. byrst f. “bristle”, O.H.G. burst, borst m. n., bursta f. “bristle”, M.H.G. burste “bristle brush“ (from dem pl. from burst “bristle mass“); Slav. *bъrsti̯o- in Russ. borščь “acanthus“, boršč “red turnip soup“, etc." The < symbol (not an arrow) is commonly used in etymology to mean "from"; I can see how it may not be clear to some readers, so no problem to spell it out as "from". But it should not be reversed unless there's a better source than Pokorny. — Kpalion(talk) 21:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I have changed it to "from". Thanks for the explanation of what the cryptic symbol was intended to mean.-- Toddy1(talk) 21:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Actually, upon looking into it (finally), that *bhares/bhores was an outdated PIE reconstruction from Pokorny. The first form *bhrsti- was the modern reconstruction (although often with an s on the end). I've corrected the sentence, added a contemporary PIE reference and removed Pokorny's reconstruction and a reference to it. (The 2007 date on Pokorny is just a modern reprinting of the original from 1959.) --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Please could you give a page reference for: J.P. Mallory & D.Q. Adams The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World. (2006, Oxford)-- Toddy1(talk) 22:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Great! Thank you, Taivo, for finding a more up-to-date reference. — Kpalion(talk) 12:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Burlakoff, a self-published source
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Toddy1 has rightly pointed out that one of the key sources used in this article:
Burlakoff, Nikolai (2013). The World of Russian Borsch: Explorations of Memory, People, History, Cookbooks & Recipes. North Charleston, SC: Createspace Independent Pub. ISBN978-1-4840-2740-0.
is most likely self-published (self-published sources are strongly discouraged per WP:SELFPUBLISH). To be honest, I didn't realize this when reading and citing the book. But perhaps this is because, when judged on its own merits, the book does seem well-researched, it has an extensive bilbiography and few obvious factual errors (which cannot be said of many sources that have been published and ostensibly reviewed by a third party). It also remains the most comprehensive work on borscht I could find. For these reasons, I would like to keep it as a source (per WP:IGNORE). I would also like to make it clear to the readers that it's self-published, but in a less distracting way than peppering the text with [self-published source?]. So here's my proposal: in the "Sources" section, I would move Burlakoff from the "Secondary" subsection to the "Primary" subsection, which would be given a new title, "Primary or self-published". A wikilink to CreateSpace would also be added. Would this solution be acceptable? — Kpalion(talk) 11:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
That is fine.-- Toddy1(talk) 12:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
However, there are some problems with this source. Even though the author is a doktor nauk in history, I don't particularly trust his article as he seems to have an agenda and there are some doubts about factual correctness. Also, I don't trust the Ukrainian translation of Martin Gruneweg's words. And it's hard to verify the statements in the article independently, because Martin Gruneweg's works are not readily available in my nearby libraries.
Could someone find the original book, find the part at the Borschivka river in it and publish the original quotes from there? If that's not too much to ask for...
The original book is:
Almut Bues, Albrecht Berger (Hrsg.): Die Aufzeichnungen des Dominikaners Martin Gruneweg (1562 – ca. 1618) über seine Familie in Danzig, seine Handelsreisen in Osteuropa und sein Klosterleben in Polen. Band 1–4. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 2008. Etwa 2000 Seiten.
Hi Amakuha, Lepyavko writes that Gruneweg's account, edited and translated (into Russian, I suppose) by Anna Khoroshkevich, is available online. Have you tried to find it? — Kpalion(talk) 15:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Original text: "Und derhalb sprechen sie, man habe diesem wasser dofonn solchen namen geben, das dabey derr Barßcz markt was, und an dem orte, da wir lagen. Kiow achte ich, ist wol groes gewesen, aber nimmer nach der Reussenn meilen, eine deutze meile, wen sie gefierekt wirt, machet sie eine groese statt, Dantzigk hatt sie kaume und schetze, das sie kaume grösser ist gewesen als itzt Dantzigk in allem ist. Das mochte sein, ob gleich diezer ohrt weit von der stat wie itzt was, dennoch konte er ein barßcz platz oder merkt geheissen werden, all ob man gleich sein tage keinen barßcz daauffe feyel hätte. Datzu kaufen die Reussenn selden oder niemmer barßcz, sondern machet in ein jeder selbst in seinem hauze, dieweile er ihr tegliche speise und drank ist." - Anna Khoroshkevich (2013). Martin Gruneveg (otets Ventseslav), dukhovnik Mariny Mnishek : zapiski o torgovoĭ poezdke v Moskvu v 1584-1585 gg. / Institute for Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences — p. 161. ISBN 978-5-88451-316-7. --Lanamy (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
@Kpalion: Thanks! I didn't read the entire article, so I missed that part... But now that you mentioned it, I found the amazing bilingual Gruneweg's notebook [12], with the original text and the Russian translation. All the statements look correct, except that the river in question is called Boerßgowka in the original German text (not Borshchovka as in the Russian translation), which is closer to the river's modern Ukrainian name Borshchagivka (it also has the g in the middle).
Here are the excerpts in question:
Nachtlagertenn im walde, beim flusse Boerßgowka genant, 8 1/2 meiln von Brussilow. <...> Und derhalb sprechen sie, man habe diesem wasser dofonn solchen namen geben, das dabey derr Barßcz markt was, und an dem orte, da wir lagen. <...> Das mochte sein, ob gleich diezer ohrt weit von der stat wie itzt was, dennoch konte er ein barßcz platz oder merkt geheissen werden, all ob man gleich sein tage keinen barßcz daauffe feyel hätte. Datzu kaufen die Reussenn selden oder niemmer barßcz, sondern machet in ein jeder selbst in seinem hauze, dieweile er ihr tegliche speise und drank ist.
Very interesting account, because according to all other local sources of 16th century that I saw Ukrainians (or Ruthenians) still used the word "borshch" for hogweed and diminutive"borshchyk" for the soup. --Amakuha (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Martin Gruneweg's account 2
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Though there does not appear to be any considerable momentum behind changes to the page, other than the occasional drive-by anons trying to cultivate a Russian POV, I would like to firstly express my agreement/concordance with TaivoLinguist (Taivo) in the event of any provocative, baseless attempts to change the place of origin to suit calumniate and negative interests. Similarly, I also wish to suggest the removal of the term 'probably east of the Dnieper River', as TaivoLinguist (Taivo) rightly deduces, one of Wikipedia's only regulatory frameworks is the persistent use of citation and prioritisation of 'verifiable' information. Clearly, stating borsch as having its origin in anywhere but 'Ukraine' is an affront to this concept, as it is undeniable that there exists an overwhelming number of books, films, magazines and most importantly people that testify to its Ukrainian origin. Aside from "East of the Dnieper"'s potential use as a Trojan Horse, passive/concealed though groundless aspersion of Russian origin, it does not represent a citatory consensus and frankly is unnecessary. Likewise, I would also motion to re-insert 'one of the most famous dishes of Ukrainian cuisine', though prior criticisms have been noted, how else can a page convey the significance of a dish without this sort of phrasing? The same phrasing used by wikipedia editors on Kielbasa "is any type of meat sausage from Poland, and a staple of Polish cuisine." or on dozens of articles for Russian food. Likewise, a number of articles with the exact same phraseology, expressing the Ukrainian's nations attachment to the dish could be found, citing the statement and providing a certified foundational basis to the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobias13111 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/YanT121/ArchiveGizzyCatBella🍁 06:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
I have removed the "east of Dnieper River" from the infobox as being a thinly-masked Trojan Horse based on very thin justification. Perhaps a more contemporary analogy would be Russia's "Little Green Men" in Crimea. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
If the phrase about borscht being one of the most famous dishes of Ukrainian cuisine should be put back in the lead (which I'm OK with), then the best place to do it would be at the beginning of the third paragraph, which discusses the soup's global appeal and ethnic associations: "One of the most famous dishes of Ukrainian cuisine, its popularity has spread throughout Eastern Europe and the former Russian Empire..." — Kpalion(talk) 22:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I think I have something to tell about the "direct transliteration" of word борщ
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Should we translate "борщ" word as is, the resulting word "borzh" (with "zh" standing for Щ) will be easy to confuse with another word: borrowed "borz", a root used nowadays in words "borzoi"/"borzaya" to refer to wolf-like dogs (and word "borz", apparently, comes from Chechnya). So, I think Yuddish-based "borscht" is justified - albeit it's confusing for some Runglish-speaking people like myself. Uchyot (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
The correct Latin transcription of "борщ" is "borshch" and this is given in the Etymology section. "Borzh" would be a transcription of "борж", which doesn't mean anything in Russian. — Kpalion(talk) 22:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Whoops. My bad. Uchyot (talk) 10:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Rewriting the lede and the place of origin
Latest comment: 3 years ago97 comments7 people in discussion
Hi, this is what I propose for the lede:
Borscht (English: /ˈbɔːrʃ,ˈbɔːrʃt/ⓘ) is a sour soup common in Eastern Europe and Northern Asia. In English, the word "borscht" is most often associated with the soup's "red" variant which contains beetroots as one of the main ingredients. The same name, however, is also used for a wide selection of sour-tasting soups without beetroots, such as sorrel-based green borscht, rye-based white borscht and cabbage borscht.
Borscht derives from an ancient soup originally cooked from pickled stems, leaves and umbels of common hogweed (Heracleum sphondylium), a herbaceous plant growing in damp meadows, which lent the dish its Slavic name. With time, it evolved into a diverse array of tart soups, among which the beet-based red borscht has become the most popular. It is typically made by combining meat or bone stock with sautéed vegetables, which – as well as beetroots – usually include cabbage, carrots, onions, potatoes and tomatoes. Depending on the recipe, borscht may include meat or fish, or be purely vegetarian; it may be served either hot or cold; and it may range from a hearty one-pot meal to a clear broth or a smooth drink. It is often served with smetana or sour cream, hard-boiled eggs or potatoes, but there exists an ample choice of more involved garnishes and side dishes, such as uszka or pampushky, that can be served with the soup.
Originating from parts of the Tsardom of Russia which correspond to present-day Ukraine, its popularity has spread throughout Eastern Europe to other countries by way of migration. In North America, borscht is often linked with either Jews or Mennonites, the groups who first brought it there from Europe. Several ethnic groups claim borscht, in its various local guises, as their own national dish consumed as part of ritual meals within Eastern Orthodox, Greek Catholic, Roman Catholic, and Jewish religious traditions.
As for the place of origin, I would either indicate "Kievan Rus" with a mention to "present-day Ukraine" or would simply put "Eastern Europe", as all the three sources provided don't seem to establish any clear place of origin (being "part of Ukraininan cuisine" is not an origin, a hamburger is part of American cuisine yet it is originally from Germany). --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Whydoesitfeelsogood, STOP EDITING THE ARTICLE UNTIL YOU GET A CONSENSUS HERE. We thought you understood that. If you want to have a productive discussion here, then you'll abide by the simple policy of WP:BRD. Read it. Learn it. Practice it. You are in the wrong at this point no matter what you are proposing. Discuss HERE first and do not edit the article anymore until there is agreement HERE on the Talk Page. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
The hamburger as a sandwich did not originate in Germany. The sandwich is American. The chopped meat patty is German in origin. I have too many meetings today to comment in greater detail. User:Kpalion may have more time, but even if he/she doesn't, keep your hands off the article itself until we've reached a mutual agreement on any changes that you wish to make. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
A sandwich is British in origin itself, by the way. Now, a submarine sandwich is truly American. So, how do we discuss it here and what do you think of my proposition? --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps you didn't read my comment about being busy today. You'll have to wait for Kpalion and myself to comment more fully. But on first look, this sentence, "Originating from parts of the Tsardom of Russia which correspond to present-day Ukraine, " must be changed to "Originating in Ukraine which was then part of the Russian Empire, " But any further detailed consideration will have to wait until tonight or tomorrow. Remember that per WP:BRD you cannot make changes to the article until a consensus is reached here first. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
IMO, the "Russian Empire" mention is as anachronistic as "Ukraine". The earliest mention predates both, like I stated above. The word "ukrayina" in proto-Slavic might predate "borshch", but it was neither referring to Russia nor to Ukraine back in the day. However, "borshch" was already referring to a specially prepared soup with hogweed as its main ingredient. Agree to give others time to make their points, --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
While the concept of putting meats between bread is, indeed, a British invention, putting a German chopped meat patty between slices of bread and calling it a "hamburger" is AMERICAN. I don't care whether it was the Tsardom of Russia or the Russian Empire. The issue is that it was invented in Ukraine and that has to be first in the sentence. It happened in the land of the Ukrainians, the "borderland" called Ukraine. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I do not really understand why there is a dispute here. Wikipedia policy is that content should verifiable, which means it has to be based on what reliable published sources say. The infobox cites three sources for the place of origin being the Ukraine. Citations [1] and [2] contain clear statements saying this. I think that citation [3] should be deleted because it is published by CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform; my understanding is that means that it is self-published, so its reliability is doubtful.
Surely there can only be a dispute if someone has reliable sources saying that it originated somewhere else?-- Toddy1(talk) 20:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't have a copy of the first source, but the second clearly states, "the development of beetroot borscht probably happened in Ukraine." There's no equivocation about it. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
You're right, User:Toddy1, that the third reference should be deleted if it's self-published. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks.
Where a citation to Burlakoff's "The World of Russian Borsch" is the only citation, I have marked it as a self-published source.
Where a statement had more than one citation, I have removed the citation to Burlakoff's "The World of Russian Borsch".
There were originally 58 citations to that book, now there are only 37.-- Toddy1(talk) 10:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
None of the three sources cited there mention the clarity of the borscht having been invented in Ukraine (like I mentioned above, something of "Ukrainian cuisine" does not make it of "Ukrainian origin"; also, "probably" should not be interpreted by WP as "definitely", if such is the case). But my main rant is actually WP:BLUESKY on these statements as no matter what country occupies that territory now, the earliest mention of beetroot borscht simply cannot come from "Ukraine". On the matter of hamburger, @TaivoLinguist, there's actually a dispute between America and Germany, which is by the way fully understandable. Also, by your logic, if Ukraine invented borscht, then America (i.e. United States) invented tobacco. See the anachronistic link there? --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Tobacco was domesticated (it was not "invented") in the Andes highlands and spread to North America. Its origin cannot be more specifically located. And while the origin of the chopped meat patty is indisputably Germany, putting that patty between slices of bread is indisputably American. Both are called "hamburger" which leads to your confusion. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
[1] "Culture and Customs of Russia", page 65 says "Russian peasants in the past existed largely on soup, usually shchi, but also borscht and ukha. The very poor might have few vegetables in the soup other than cabbage, making it shchi, or if it also had beets it was then considered borscht. Borscht, actually Ukrainian in origin, in a more developed version has cabbage, beets, onion, carrots, potatoes, meat, and other ingredients and is served…"
[2] "Encyclopedia of Jewish Food" has an entry for "borscht", which says "Borscht is a soup made with beets. It may be hot or cold and it may contain meat or be vegetarian. Origin: Ukraine"
Well, the way I see it, the ethnic group of origin are Ukrainians, but the country of origin is not Ukraine. Also, IMO, the first source is very unreliable and seems to be written by "an average Joe" for the likewise. I will try to find a more historically and culturally accurate source, but it might be in Russian. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Since the two most reliable sources say explicitly, "Ukraine" and "Ukrainians", this discussion is actually over. "Ukraine" is the origin. Your sophistry, User:Whydoesitfeelsogood doesn't matter. Early on in this discussion you asked specifically if any of our references said, "Ukraine" and they do. Case closed. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry I couldn't respond sooner, but now I actually find that Taivo has already made the same arguments I would make. — Kpalion(talk) 21:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, I don't see a reason to change the lead in the first place. But, to be more specific: the lead, as it is currently, doesn't say that red borscht originated in Ukraine; it says it is of Ukrainian origin; isn't it what you wanted anyway? The infobox does say "Ukraine", but that's because the purpose of an infobox is to provide information in the most concise way and "territory of present-day Ukraine" would be too unwieldy. I see no reason at all why the lead should mention the Tsardom of Russia. And why would you like to put the word "red" in quotation marks? — Kpalion(talk) 12:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Putting the word "red" in quotation marks may be optional, I just tried to keep the direction that sentence was going with. "In English, the word 'borscht'…" If the second phrase of the first paragraph is to define the origin of the English word, then an emphasis must be put on the color of the soup, as this is its world renown distinctive feature. It's like writing "Pizza is hand-tossed bread with a sauce/cheese base and toppings, baked in the over". Having checked from the top of my head, but pretty sure varieties exist which omit at least one of the aforementioned things. However, the borscht known to be in the current world is made with beets and is red. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 02:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
In English the quotes around "red" imply that it's not really red, but that's what people call it. Beetroot borsch is red. The quotes around "Borscht" imply something different--the English word that is being defined. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 05:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Whydoesitfeelsogood, the same sentence that talks about the best-known variant being of Ukrainian origin also says that it has a "distinctive red color". So what problem are you trying to fix here? — Kpalion(talk) 11:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
The three citations "showing" Ukrainian origins should be deleted... because they do nothing of the sort. We cannot have sources that in passing just say something without evidence. Just because it is written somewhere does not make it proof! It's not THAT hard to write a book and throw in your views on something - I've seen books claim "birsto" came from Russians in Paris after they drove back Napoleon (despite evidence of the word pre-dating the 19th century). In chapters 45-54 of Domostroi we clearly see a proto-borsh being discussed: a mixture of beets and cabbage. This is a historical book from 1533 - this is actual evidence.
We can all find some modern writings that mention whatever we want, but actual proof should be required for a claim, not just a mention without evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.248.138.193 (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Well, for starters, in this phrase:
In English, the word "borscht" is most often associated with the soup's variant of Ukrainian origin, one of the most famous dishes of Ukrainian cuisine, made with beetroots as one of the main ingredients, which give the dish its distinctive red color.
1) Why do we need to mention twice that the soup's variant of Ukrainian origin is also a famous dish of its cuisine? Isn't that redundant?
2) The way I read it, it implies that borscht's beetroot variant (which is the most widely known, no doubt there) is "most often associated with Ukrainian cuisine", while this statement is definitely false and OR? We do agree that borscht originated in Ukraine. Fine. But far from most restaurants serving it associate it with Ukrainian cuisine, as I seem to recall. My wrong? Sources?
You don't understand the implications of the English. 1) Borscht is part of Ukrainian cuisine, and 2) out of the dishes that make up Ukrainian cuisine, borscht is the most famous. Both of those statements are true. The statement does NOT say that people who eat borscht elsewhere in the world know that it's from Ukraine or that it is served exclusively in Ukrainian restaurants. In other words, you have misconstrued the meaning of the plain English text. Many people in the US know that "goulash" (gyulás, of course) is from Hungary, but the goulash that they eat is the German version, not the Hungarian version. Just because people know about borscht doesn't mean that they know where it comes from. The text makes no such implication that they know, but only that of all the foods that originated in Ukraine, borscht is the most famous. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 03:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
1) The words "one of the most famous dishes of Ukrainian cuisine" were added by a drive-by anon in February. This fragment does seem to put too much emphasis on Ukraine in one sentence and I'm OK with removing it.
2) I don't see the implication that borscht's beetroot variant is most often associated with Ukrainian cuisine. What the lead says is that the word "borscht" is most often associated with the particular kind of borscht that happens to be of Ukrainian origin. That is, when you hear the word "borscht", it's not the Russian green borscht or the Polish white borscht, but the Ukrainian red borscht that first comes to mind. If this is not clear from the way it's written in the lead, then I'm open to suggestions for how to rewrite it (while retaining the same information). — Kpalion(talk) 11:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
It is, indeed, impossible to objectively judge "most famous" and that can be deleted. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I believe consensus has been reached on this part, so I went ahead and removed this bit. — Kpalion(talk) 18:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
When I hear the word "borscht", I very unlikely associate it with "Ukrainian origin", let alone your examples of "Russian green borscht". What is the problem with:
In English, the word "borscht" is most often associated with the soup's variant made with beetroots as one of the main ingredients, which give the dish its distinctive red color. Despite a misconception of it having originated in Russia, the borscht is actually Ukrainian in origin.
What we also need to keep in mind and address is the fact that numerous editors come here to challenge this statement (obviously for being unpopular). --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I would state the fact first and the misconception second and would agree with "Red beetroot borscht is Ukrainian in origin despite a common misconception that it originated in Russia." --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 05:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Good point, Toddy1. So the sentence doesn't even need to mention "Russia" or a misconception and should simply say, "Red beetroot borscht is Ukrainian in origin." That's the localization given by our reliable sources. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
If we abide the statement by "convenient short forms" logic, then shouldn't it state "Russia" for Russian Tsardom/Empire since Ukraine was clearly part of it at the time? Also, I do believe it to be a prominent controversy. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 14:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
At what time, though? We don't have an exact date for the invention of beetroot borscht (we only have the date of the earliest dictionary definition of borscht mentioning beets, which is 1806), nor do we know the exact place in Ukraine where it was invented. In the early 19th century, some parts of what is now Ukraine belonged to the Russian Empire and some to the Habsburg Empire. If the invention had taken place 50 years before 1806 (not impossible), then we'd have to take the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Ottoman Empire into account as well. So do you have a reliable source that would confirm your conjecture that beetroot borscht was invented in a part of Ukraine that belonged to Russia at the time? — Kpalion(talk) 15:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Quoting a paragraph from the "Origin" section:
The earliest written reference to the Slavic hogweed soup can be found in Domostroy (Domestic Order), a 16th-century Russian compendium of moral rules and homemaking advice. It recommends growing the plant "by the fence, around the whole garden, where the nettle grows", to cook a soup of it in springtime and reminds the reader to, "for the Lord's sake, share it with those in need".
Correct me please in case I'm wrong, but Domostroy was written sometime between 1545 and 1568 (Russian source) and, presuming that it already contained the mention of 'beetroot soup', a deduction can be made that the actual borscht (not the word "borscht") already existed during the Tsardom of Russia-era. The present-day Ukraine at that time was split between the Tsardom, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, as well as the Kingdom of Hungary (a more precise political entity withing the Habsburg Monarchy you're referring to). This is OR, but personally I hardly doubt that both the second and the latter were responsible for the appearance of beetroot soup, as neither had any analogous dishes made out of beetroots at the time. Though, once again, I may be wrong. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Why you presume that the borscht described in Domostroy contained beetroots? The cited source clearly says it talks about hogweed borscht. — Kpalion(talk) 17:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Try translating Chapter 45 onto English (it's written in Old Russian), particularly the following passage: "а в ту пору и до осени борщ режучи сушить ино всегда пригодится и в год и в даль и капусту все лето варить и свеклу а в осень копусту солити". In a nutshell, it suggests both cabbage and beetroot (and how they) should be prepared as ingredients for the soup. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Whydoesitfeelsogood, to my way of thinking, if Burlakoff's "The World of Russian Borsch" is allowed as a source, then quoting or paraphrasing Domostroy's book in the body of the article should also be OK. But you are not allowed to draw conclusions from it. You can only state what it says. See WP:PRIMARY. If reliable secondary sources draw conclusions about similarities between what Domostroy describes and borscht, you can cite them. None of this has any relevance to the article's lead (at least not for the time being).-- Toddy1(talk) 22:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Whydoesitfeelsogood, I'm not sure if my understanding of old Russian is as good as yours, but to me this fragment reads like saying that summer is a good time for drying hogweed, as well as for cooking cabbage and beets, and salting cabbage for sauerkraut. It doesn't seem to say that you can cook hogweed and beets together. — Kpalion(talk) 00:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Toddy1 and you are both right. I fell victim to my own etymological trap, wherein I was clinging to the word "борщ". In Domostroy, that sentence clearly deals with hogweed instead (in contemporary Russian, the word is "борщевик"; hence I have relied too heavily on the Russian WP). My apologies, --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 05:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Borsh the way we see it today did not exist at the time. The fact that Domostroi describes proto-borsh, with cabbage and beets, may be the best actual evidence we have. Moreover, Ukrainian nationalism did not exist until after WWI - so East Slavs in the are at the time of borsh creation would not have differentiated themselves as Ukrainian even if there was any evidence that borsh can be claimed by Ukraine alone.
(od)User:Whydoesitfeelsogood, you missed my point, the point of localization. It doesn't matter whether or not Ukraine was part of the Russian autocracy or not when borscht was invented when we have a clear indication of a more accurate location than "somewhere between the Baltic Sea and the Pacific Ocean, the Arctic Ocean and the Black and Caspian Seas". Forget Russia because we have a localized geographic term to use instead: Ukraine/-ians. Toddy's point was that it doesn't matter whether people think "Russia" or not because it is technically correct, but in the same way that "Champagne was invented in Europe" is. A localized identification is far superior to a generalized, nonspecific one. And it doesn't matter whether beetroot borscht was invented in 1500, 1700, 1900, or yesterday, it was still invented by Ukrainians, who live in Ukraine. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Solid. Question is: would you or would you not agree that the common worldwide misconception exists in attributing borscht's invention to Russia (with due details hinted at appropriately in the article) as per discussed in the thread above? I do see how you interpret "Ukraine" in the lede, I just want to make sure the average reader does the same and ends up not raising the question of where the borscht could have originated from. Like myself preivously, others still keep trying to rewrite that passage. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 06:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
It is not worth mentioning.-- Toddy1(talk) 07:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
There's an entire subsection devoted to this matter at the end of the article. So the misconception is covered. It just doesn't seem to be important enough to be mentioned in the lead. — Kpalion(talk) 19:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Actually, don't interpret the sources the way I did with Domostroy. No source says the beetroot borscht was invented "by Ukrainians", only that it was invented in Ukraine. And here lies my problem: Ukraine is vast. The present-day Ukraine covers a much larger territory than what was considered to be "Ukraike" at the time of the invention. And I "didn't miss" your point, I disagree with it. I disagree with how you interpret this information because I know there is another way to interpret it. I stand by that the "country" parameter in the infobox should state something like "Eastern Ukraine" or "Specific oblast X (present-day Ukraine)", for example. Once again, take a look at Shchi. Specifying "Kievan Rus" as a "country" is okay because it covers a large enough area to pinpoint the general location of where it might have been invented. That is, the shchi might have even been invented in present-day Poland, for all we know. But when you insist on stating "Ukraine" in that parameter simply because the sources say so, to me it's WP:BLUESKY clear that the location isn't specific enough, even assuming all your defense point (i.e. "Champagne was invented in Europe" etc.) --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
You seem to not understand the way Wikipedia works if this is your attitude: "But when you insist on stating "Ukraine" in that parameter simply because the sources say so, to me it's WP:BLUESKY clear that the location isn't specific enough". That is exactly how Wikipedia operates, we state "Ukraine" because the sources say so. Perhaps it's different on the Russian Wikipedia, but this is the English Wikipedia and that's precisely how we do things. And you're joking if you think that the origin of beetroot borscht can be narrowed down to a specific region or town of Ukraine. The sources say "Ukraine" and "Ukrainians" so that's precisely what we write here. It doesn't matter what is done at Shchi because this isn't that article. And, sorry, you still don't seem to understand the point about localization because "Kievan Rus" was nearly as big as cisuralic Russia at its high point. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
To me, the way Wikipedia editing works is simple — I see a passage worth correcting and I correct it. Once again, as stated in WP:BLUESKY, generally you don't need sources to prove that the sky is blue (however, I know that a consensus is needed and I never said I was against it). Any source (even reliable ones) you find saying "borscht was invented in Ukraine" is a source basically saying "when the sun is near horizon, the sky is still blue" and I am trying to correct that imprecision. A statement saying "borscht can be cooked without beetroots" is not WP:BLUESKY because proof is required for such a statement. But in the case above, it is required to only accurately pinpoint a specific region in which beetroot borscht (how the dish is usually cooked) had first appeared, as well as to specify what part of cuisine the beetroot borscht invention is attributed to. Morever, the time period is also important, it cannot be overlooked or dealt with by bluntly copyediting what the sources state. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but it is not a factbook made of copyedits, this is why sources require verification and interpretation. Feel free to report me if you doubt my editing style, we will then be taking this discussion elsewhere. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
The sources say Ukraine/Ukrainians. Trying to push your "Russian" narrative is clearly going nowhere in terms of building a consensus. The region where beetroot borsch was developed is the region of Ukraine, not Russia. And citing WP:BLUESKY to bolster your opinion is certainly creative, but it's just your opinion. It is not a universally held one or irrefutable fact. It's not "the earth is round". It is more along the lines of "the sky is usually gray", which might be true if your home is Moscow, but is not universally true and is not irrefutable fact. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
At least you seem to agree that beetroot borscht is the most popular, which I am not contesting, and that it gained its popularity from Ukrainian cuisine, which I'm not contesting either. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 05:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
In the case of shchi, the cited source (William Pokhlebkin) says that it was invented in 9th-century Rus. There's a source, so it's fine. What does Pokhlebkin say about borscht? That it's a Ukrainian dish. — Kpalion(talk) 08:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
It narrows down to the beetroot borscht being from Ukraine, appearing somewhere between the 1600s and the 1900s, and not quoted in the Domostroy version I found on the web (although Burlakoff is cited as having found the mention in that book). --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Okay. So what is your point now? — Kpalion(talk) 00:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I think you must have misunderstood. The link you suggested [[Name of Ukraine|Ukraine]] leads to Name of Ukraine. This is not an article about the Ukraine, nor is it about the Ukrainian people. It is about the name.
Let me give an analogy to help you understand. If you look at the article on Blancmange, you will see that there is a section of the article discussing what blancmange is called. The article Name of Ukraine is about what the Ukraine is called.-- Toddy1(talk) 06:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
(od)Alright, let's all just go over this again, for the n-nth time. The country called "Ukraine" today in its actual borders is a sovereign state which appeared in 1991. The Ukrainian Socialist Republic had approximately the same borders and was culturally and ethnically related to the current state of Ukraine so it can be considered its precursor from 1917. The Little Russia was a colloquial term for several governorates within the Russian Empire, and which has sometimes been referred to as "Ukraine" from as early as the 16th century. Ukrainians were by then considered an ethnic group, however, they did not form an entity strong enough to form a nation of Ukraine. Just like today, for example, Quebecers are a distinct ethnic and cultural group within Canada and if you look at the article about poutine, while it says that the country of origin is Canada, the region says specifically "Quebec". When editors argue that "sources say Ukraine so Ukraine it is, don't push your 'Russian' whatever" the article ends up being constantly "vandalized" with them ending up reverting it almost every day. If this is how you think things should work on WP, wasting time revering ambiguities like this one simply because we cannot reach a consensus on the specificity of borscht, then be it. People don't come here because they want to be vandals, they come here because the way the information is written is not specific enough and they want to correct it. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
No problem. I shall edit it then by adding both the Name of Ukraine wikilink and the "region" parameter in the infobox. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
NO. The consensus has been and remains that "Ukraine" is the place of origin. All your arguments, User:Whydoesitfeelsogood, have not changed that consensus. (Unless your comment was in jest, of course.) And editors do not stop by here "almost every day". The rate is closer to once a month, if that much. It is not an onerous task to revert drive-by anon editors pushing an agenda. The rate tends to follow the real-world ebb and flow of Ukrainian-Russian relations. And these drive-by editors do not stop here to make the infobox "more specific", they stop here to push a Russian POV by writing "Russia". User:Toddy1 carefully explained why "name of Ukraine" will not work. I will give you credit, however, for the useful text editing that has been done to the lead. It has been productive, made the text flow better, and eliminated unnecessary redundancy. Such things should be done in articles occasionally because of edit creep in which a change in one place is not always fully integrated into the text as a whole. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I did not concede because the consensus was presumably reached. I conceded because I foresaw politicization of the talk, in which I tried to keep a neutral POV knowing very well what is going on right now in both these countries. After one of my replies has been reverted, I got the general idea of how this article will be "kept" for many editors, both neutral and not so much. You were right about my opinion remaining my opinion, but I try to keep it to myself and reach a consensus regarding the precise geographical region of then Ukraine where beetroot soup originated. And yes, this is my last issue with the article. I've dropped many others due to the inconsistency within the sources. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
While unanimity is always a pleasant result, it is not required to achieve or maintain a WP:CONSENSUS. I don't see any evidence that the consensus for "Ukraine" (linked to Ukraine) in the infobox has changed. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Whydoesitfeelsogood, you're saying you want to specify the precise geographical region of where beetroot borscht originated, but you're trying to do so by referring to defunct political entities with fluctuating borders and areas much vaster than modern Ukraine. This doesn't make much sense to me. A more precise geographical region could be something like "Kyiv Oblast" or "drainage basin of the Dnieper", but only provided we have reliable sources that say so. But we don't and the most precise location we can provide, based on sources, is "Ukraine". — Kpalion(talk) 12:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Simple things don't need to be so complicated. We are talking about the origins of the beetroot borscht. We have a source which states that beetroot borscht originated in present-day Ukraine sometime between the 17th and the 19th centuries. The way the article reads right now, beetroot borscht originated in present-day Ukraine. See the difference between these statements? I do agree that we need a more specific location and my example with poutine and Quebec shows that, while the country it originated from is still Canada, the specific region is Quebec and might predate the present-day Canada. What I'm trying to figure out right now is what specific region beetroot borscht is from and I currently am looking for such a source on the web. I believe this would stop random people from editing "Ukraine" out of that infobox once every couple days. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
You are mistaken:
Random people are not editing the "Ukraine" out of the infobox. They are most unlikely to be random.
Your poutine and Canada analogy actually supports the infobox saying the Ukraine, because that is the present-day country. If, next week, the Ukraine is annexed by Poland, your analogy would support a change to Poland being the country of origin as you suggest, and having the Ukraine as the region in the infobox.
If you have sources that say 17th century Ukraine instead of the Ukraine, then by all means change the infobox field to | country = 17th century [[Ukraine]]{{sfnp|S...
User:Whydoesitfeelsogood your "every couple of days" is only true when editors like you show up and keep pushing the issue on the Talk Page. Otherwise, during the years that the text has been stable, they only show up every two or three months. Fortunately Talk Page discussions are rather infrequent since the issue is well-documented in reliable sources. If you manage to find new reliable sources then, of course, the issue needs to be revisited, but User:Kpalion's original search for reliable sources was quite thorough and that's why we have a high level of confidence in the article as it stands. If you find something that says "Beetroot borsch was first invented in Lviv or Transcarpathia" (I always misspell the correct Ukrainian name), then we'd have something to go on. But unless those sources have appeared in the last two years, Kpalion's research still stands as rock-solid. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
"Exactly when and where borscht appeared is something of a mystery; but it was probably first made in what is now Ukraine, somewhere between the fifth and ninth centuries AD." "Only in the mid-16th century did beetroot, with its tender, red roots, reach the Slavic world." "Some say that the earliest versions of 'red borscht' were made by hungry Don Cossacks during Peter the Great's unsuccessful siege of Azov in 1695. Others claim that it was a group of starving Zaphorozhian Cossacks from the Dneiper Rapids who came up with the idea during the siege of Vienna in 1683. But there is probably little truth in either. Most likely, beetroot borscht was made by ethnic Ukrainians living under Russian rule east of the Dneiper in the late 17th or early 18th century." Lee, Alexander (August 2018). "From Russia with Borscht". History Today. Vol. 68, no. 8. -- Toddy1(talk) 18:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Great find, User:Toddy1. (I was looking on the wrong end of the country with my examples.) What's interesting is that the origin of borsch as a whole is linked to Ukraine, not just the beetroot version. So with regard to the beetroot version, "probably Ukraine east of the Dnipro" would be an appropriate localization to use where appropriate and where we agree by consensus. (There are half a dozen oblasts east of the Dnipro.) I would avoid "Eastern Ukraine" because during the current Russian invasion and occupation of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts that term is often associated in the English-speaking world with "Russian-occupied Ukraine", aka, the Donbass. "East of the Dnipro" labels the broader area more neutrally without contemporary political associations. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I was not proposing a name change, just using the name that I know it by :) (I also commonly used "Kyiv" long before the Wikipedia article was moved.) --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
After the following statement from your side:
I would avoid "Eastern Ukraine" because during the current Russian invasion and occupation of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts that term is often associated in the English-speaking world with "Russian-occupied Ukraine", aka, the Donbass.
I don't think we have anything in common to reach a consensus on whichever topic there is in general, and find rather deplorable that the "Western" propaganda-based POV has reached WP as well. Where such statements occur, there is no place for WP:NEUTRAL and never will be. I therefore quit this talk definitely. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 05:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
By the way, if we remove all the "probably"s and "maybe"s from that source, we get a pretty clear phrase: "Most likely, beetroot borscht was made by ethnic Ukrainians living under Russian rule east of the Dneiper in the late 17th or early 18th century." Ukrainians living under Russian rule sounds ridiculous, however, but I would totally agree for this very sentence to be in the lede. Variant: "Most likely, beetroot borscht was made by ethnic Ukrainians living east of the Dneiper river in what was then known as the Russian Empire, the late 17th or early 18th century." --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
You just can't stop pushing the word "Russia" into every sentence that contains the word "Ukraine" can you? That's pushing an extreme POV. It doesn't matter who Ukrainians paid their taxes to one bit. They invented borsch (apparently both the beetroot and the hogweed versions according to a reliable source). They were Ukrainians. Your last comment clearly illustrates how sensitive you are to protecting the honor of Russia. Every single one of your proposals has the result of devaluing Ukrainians and pushing Russian domination over them. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
As for your suggested edit, I oppose it as WP:POINTy editing. It makes no addition to the information about the origin of borsch. Its locus does not change by one mile. It's just pushing the political POV of Russian dominance over Ukraine, which is irrelevant to the story of a soup. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
This article is not about Ukraine or Ukrainians. It's about borscht. Sources are not considered reliable because they suit your need to indicate whichever point you're trying to make, their liability comes from how much factual information they state. If you go to the borscht article in the Ukrainian WP, you will most likely read that it was invented by Ukrainians living in Ukraine around 5 AD because Kiev was founded by Ukrainians and had always been part of Ukraine. If you visit the Russian WP, however, you'll find out that beetroot borscht was invented by residents of present-day Eastern Ukraine from a Cossack recipe including hogweed. Which of these statements is more factually accurate? In other words, which would you believe and not consider being pretentious and absurd? What does Russia even have to do with anything I've written? East of the Dnieper 1600 AD = Tsardom of Russia, like it or not. Present-day Ukraine, sure, but I've mentioned both. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 06:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
First, neither the Russian nor the Ukrainian Wikipedia has anything whatsoever to do with what we are talking about because this is the English Wikipedia and wikis, by their very nature, are not reliable sources per Wikipedia policy. Second, we have reliable sources that state that borsch was invented in Ukraine by Ukrainians. Third, if you can't see that nearly every single proposal that you have offered here does nothing whatsoever other than to insert the word "Russia" next to the word "Ukraine" or "Ukrainians", and, at least in your early proposals, put the word "Russia" in front of or instead of "Ukraine/Ukrainians", then of course you don't understand what the problem with your edits is. Fourth, the government that Ukrainians were paying their taxes to is irrelevant to an article about soup. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Whydoesitfeelsogood, reliable sources say "Ukraine" (they should say "the Ukraine"). You asked for something more precise, and the answer is "probably East of the Dnieper". Geography in 1648.-- Toddy1(talk) 08:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
What is the map of the 1648 Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth doing here? I don't follow. Are you suggesting that what I previously wrote about present-day Ukraine being part of the PLC at the time is rather correct a/p the cited source? If so, I was never rebutting it. We have the "where", but we still don't have the "when", although if the aforementioned "when" is correct, then we're indeed talking about PLC, not Russian Tsardom/Empire. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
But whether Poland-Lithuania or Russia, the government that Ukrainians paid their taxes to is still immaterial when talking about soup. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Agree, no clue why you come up with this. The sources, however, based on the map provided, further support the correct mention of "present-day Ukraine" in the infobox "county" parameter. I would completely remove this parameter, though, and rely solely on "region of state" with what has been suggested here. How is no one seeing the confusion those (likely highly amateur) sources are creating? --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
The cited sources say "Ukraine". So the article says the Ukraine. It is best left as it is; that way it complies with Wikipedia policies on verifiability.-- Toddy1(talk) 19:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
But if you add "present-day Ukraine" you really think that would make OR over simple factual precision? --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
[[Ukraine]] produces Ukraine. I would prefer the Ukraine, but why make difficulties for the sakes of it? There is no OR. It is factual and can be supported by citations to reliable sources. It is useful to readers. There is no possible confusion.
The only possible problems are with Russian and Polish revanchism.-- Toddy1(talk) 20:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
As much as I love Ukraine (the country) and Ukrainians (the nation), some dishes don't necessarily come from either. And if some sources say they do, then either these sources are pro-Ukrainian, or they're been inaccurate/misread. The borscht that is made with beetroots and served with sour cream can have its Ukrainian variant, no doubt (and it would be news for me to actually have this variant widespread across the world from what has always been Don Cossack territory, as, for starters, I did not know that). But. BUT. Hogweed soup originating from around the time Domostroy was written cannot come from Ukraine. Draniki can come from Ukraine. Salo can come from Ukraine. Horilka can come from Ukraine. This... no. Impossible. My great-grandfather was born in Vladivostok and they made delicious sorrel borscht there, just like Suvorov's army used to make when battling Napoleon ranks. He would have never conceded that recipe to Ukrainians, ever. Therefore, I'm glad for Ukrainians to have underwent the 2014 Revolution and being all anti-Russian now, but that does not make the borscht more Ukrainian. Please don't copy what the Ukrainian WP said, Anatoly Shariy already made fun of it and they had to rectify their sources thereafter. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Your opinion means nothing. Reliable sources say "Ukraine" and "Ukrainians". That's the end of the matter no matter how much you want to make sure that the world sees the word "Russia" in front of, instead of, or following the words "Ukraine" or "Ukrainians". You have presented no evidence whatsoever that beetroot borsch was invented by anyone other than Ukrainians. And "borsch" to English speakers, the readers of the English Wikipedia, is made with beets, not hogweed and not sorrel. So beetroot borsch is what is described here. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 05:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
(od) By acknowledging it, you contribute to Zelensky's nationalist movement campaign whose followers think that since the English WP states that "the borscht was invented in Ukraine", it can somehow be considered a victory over Russia and Russians. Google it. I have tried my best, once again, but you wish to be ridiculed this way, it seems. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 07:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Once again, you have no reliable sources to say anything other than borsch, certainly the beetroot variety and probably the hogweed variety as well, was invented by Ukrainians. It is not I who is ridiculed by relying on reliable sources, but you who simply try every political tactic in your arsenal to argue that the word "Russia" must occur before, instead of, or immediately after "Ukraine" wherever it is encountered. I'm sure that if Ukrainians thought for a second that denying the facts and giving Russia credit for borsch would get putin's invasion force off Ukrainian territory in Crimea and the Donbass, they wouldn't hesitate for a moment to claim that putin himself invented it at his dacha. But your feeble attempts to somehow link the facts recorded in reliable sources about a soup to the current Russian invasion are the ridiculous notion. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 10:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, neither me nor you can decide for Ukrainians what they should and should not do with their own country, however, I wasn't talking about Ukrainians. I was talking about a minority percentage who think they represent all the nation and can make statements covering the opinion of their entire people. There is no vandalism in mentioning that "borscht was invented in what is now Ukraine", once again, this is precise, short and accurate in accordance with the sources. Where do you see "Russia" in this mention? --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Is the article in History Today a reliable source?
This article by Alexander Lee is being used as a source for the claim that "most likely, beetroot borscht was made by ethnic Ukrainians living under Russian rule east of the Dneiper [sic] in the late 17th or early 18th century." I wonder whether this source is a reliable one, though. Please read the whole article (from 2018) and then the history section of the Wikipedia article (in its current, mostly stable, form since 2016) once again, and please tell me, doesn't Lee's text read very much like a paraphrase of the Wikipedia article (without proper citation)? The part about borscht being invented east of the Dnieper in the 17th-18th centuries isn't cited either, but it seems to be little more than the author's conjecture based on the two legends referenced in the same paragraph. — Kpalion(talk) 10:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
It is a magazine article for people interested in history. You can buy it at (for example) the Public Record Office in London. The article is probably a tertiary source because it attempts to summarise primary and secondary sources at an introductory level. (See WP:TERTIARY.) History Today can be expected to have a professional structure in place for checking or analysing facts, evidence, and arguments. This increases its value as a source. It is perfectly OK for an author writing forHistory Today to draw a conclusion from the evidence about where and when borscht originated. As a Wikipedia editor, you can only state what reliable sources say.
Of course we also need to beware of circular logic. If the 2018 Wikipedia article had said "most likely, beetroot borscht was made by ethnic Ukrainians living under Russian rule east of the River Dnieper in the late 17th or early 18th century", then citing History Today as a source for that might have been circular logic. I looked at the 07:45, 3 March 2018 and 05:49, 8 June 2018 versions, which seemed about right for someone writing an August 2018 article, and could not find such a statement. So it does not seem to be a case of circular logic to cite it for that statement. -- Toddy1(talk) 14:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Can we use pre-revolution (pre-1917) books to refer to Borscht's origins and such?
As far as I can tell, BORSCHT as a kind of soup can be found in many books on cooking. I unironically wonder: is it possible to use pre-1917 sources, books and such?
For example, I am thinking of quoting, citing a book from pre-1917 period, "Podarok Molodym Hozyaykam" book by Molohovets ("Подарок молодой хозяйке") to trace back, what kinds of soups referred to as borschts used to exist? In the end, a book like that could have "de-endemize" mady dishes, with borzh, erm, borscht not being unique in that matter. Also, I think I have a physical copy from 2003 somethere. Uchyot (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, this link says there was a bunch of different "borschts" yet there's also a bunch of soups not listed as "borschts yet stacked under the same "Borscht" general section:
Borscht in "maloross" way (eg. Ukrainian way)
Borsht in Polish way
Borsht in "usual" way
Borscht "in a different" manner
Borscht made of baked beet with wine
Borscht out of celery
Borscht with fresh mushrooms
Soup made of bulls' tails is listed next in the column
Using old cookbooks "to trace back what kinds of soups referred to as borschts used to exist" is what we call original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. What we do instead is to look for books and articles by people who have already done this kind of research and cite their work. Examples of old recipes could be used for the purpose of illustration, but that would open another set of problems: if you add one example, someone else will want to add an example of their own and soon the article, which is already long enough, will turn into a cookbook. — Kpalion(talk) 15:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
That said, Uchyot, I don't want to sound discouraging. Browsing through old cookbooks, analyzing and comparing recipes, and drawing your own conclusion, just like you described, is a great thing. I do it a lot myself – just not on Wikipedia, which, again, is not the right place for this kind of research. Instead, I do it on my blog (check it out, maybe you'll like it; it even looks like Wikipedia, but that's only because I based it on Wikimedia software, which I was already familiar with). — Kpalion(talk) 02:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
OK, note taken, thanks. I am, basically, supposed to cite people who "researched" Molohovets' book in some way to back up the initial idea Molohovets' used: list a bunch of soups as borschts. Right? Uchyot (talk) 08:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
That's right, cite people who researched borscht recipes from primary sources (such as Molokhovets' cookbook) and published their findings in reliable secondary sources. — Kpalion(talk) 09:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
OK. ALSO: thanks for reverting my "nothing-to-do", i'll avoid using "bullet-in points"; also, guess I'll spend some weekend/holiday time to seek for the sources to my claims. Uchyot (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
NEW INFO: I am actuallyfine with "beet soup from Ukraine" borscht part. I am fine with Borscht Belt district Ukrainian dish; nevertheless - but this article "smelled" to me like a misrepresentation fuel when all Slavic borschts (the non-beet ones) accidentally fall under same Ukrainian umbrella.81.89.66.133 (talk) 11:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Modern "sugar beet" vs XIX century and older recipes - culinary question
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I have some unanswered questions about the sweetness of modern beets, compared to XIX century beet.
Is there is any issue when it comes to separate "tart" borschts and modern sweet-tasting beet borschts once latter are made of sweet sugar beet? Are there specially grown non-sugary beets? Are there techniques to compensate the unwanted-for-some-ancient-antique-recipe sweetness with some bitter or sour vegetable/compound? Uchyot (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Added a note in the article. I hope no one objects against it. Uchyot (talk) 13:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I object. 1) No reliable source. 2) Wikipedia is not a cookbook. 3) If we start giving advice about borscht based on historic knowledge, then we would need to go back to beetroot kvass (fermented beets) as the original ingredient. --Amakuha (talk) 05:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Well...
It doesn't look hard to find it. AFAIK, sugar beet was bred in late XIX century (after Mendel's laws from 1865) while beet soup(s) happened (appeared) earlier; so it's "logical" as in "easy to dig more info on that" without "ORIGINAL RESEARCH" rejection.
Wikipedia's not "news"/"crystal ball"/etc. platform (as in WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOCRYSTAL etc.); however, the list of common misconceptions could use borscht's situation (would gladly search for refs)
The beetroot kvass part sounds important ("concotion" drink vs chopped sugar beet in modern "borschts" my family cooks). Thanks a lot for that notion.
In short: I don't like the "it has any beet = it's 100% historical borscht" part; thanks for the notion: I realise now there's not enough valuable-enough info (i'll try to do something about that later).Uchyot (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Origin
Latest comment: 3 years ago21 comments5 people in discussion
Articles and even books mentioning borsh is of Ukrainian origin is not “verifiable.” These are just people passing on what they heard, there is zero actual historical evidence in the citations provided. I have a book that says “bistro” came from Russians being in Paris after driving back Napoleon - this is likely not true and should not be taken as true just because a cook mentions it in their book. Saying borsh is Ukrainian is desired by Ukrainian nationalists, but it has nothing (historically) to do with Ukrainian nationalism. If anyone has any actual text references (or perhaps some other evidence) from long ago specifically linking borsh origins to Ukraine , I would love to see it. This might be the first mention of it as has been the case with other food, or, since the soup underwent a good bit of change, maybe the first time it’s mentioned in a form approximating today’s borsh, or claims of invention from writings of long ago? Since these things don’t exist, it is only not reasonable to say Borsh is of Ukrainian origin as we do not know that to be the case. Skorepin (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
If you want to check historical sources, I suggest to start e.g. with one of those mentioned in the article: Avdeyeva, Yekaterina Alekseyevna (1846) [1842]. Ручная книга русской опытной хозяйки [Handbook of the Experienced Russian Housewife]. It can be downloaded here. First go to page 226 and check the contents of the first chapter starting after that page. It start with "1st section - Russian table". It mentions shchi, buraki (a soup made of beets and wheat flour), lapsha (noodle soup), etc., but no beetroot borscht. Then look at the contents of "5th section - different dishes". This section starts at page 198. Its full title written on page 198 is "Different dishes which went into use by the Russians". It starts with "Little Russian borscht" (beetroot borscht), followed by vareniki, zrazy, kolduny, pampushki, pudding etc. So Avdeyeva describes here foreign dishes adopted by the Russian. --Off-shell (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
It mentions another name for a certain beet soup, "Buraki"? Hooray to that! Because in Russian version/section of this article, there is "Russian trend is to put mayo in borscht" claim. And there is a bunch of Russian recipes. And in a certain Chinese game, they avoided naming an item "borscht", naming it "beet and carrot soup". In my opinion, the idea to make a soup thick by adding flour is rare, but good. And while Borscht is served with smetana, here in my family, they mix smetana into the beet soup. Now I know how to name it. ADDITIONAL INDO: I know "burak" is a dialectism for beet in Russian (compared to literature norm, "svyokla"/"svekla"); but "buraki" in plural as a word for a certain kind of soup is a good mention. Uchyot (talk) 07:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Look, Skorepin, Borscht-as-in-Beet-Soup could have been invented by anyone nominally Ukrainian.
Maybe by a non-Mova-speaking inhabitant of some Ukrainian town - it's still "made in Ukraine".
Maybe it actually comes from "surjik" speakers.
Maybe it's unironically a dish of merchants of Odessa.
Maybe it was made by a Jannisary.
Let alone this scenario could have happened: "canonical" Cossack-grade Ukrainian decided to use beet to replace bitter vegetable like "редька", "radish" or due to beet soup's resemblance (purple/red color) with "blood dish", krovyanka. Not many people cook blood-ful dishes nowadays, yet it's a thing.
In the end, modern super-sweet beet isn't equal to Medieval beet, so you pretty much should try to call Russian modern recipes "Russian sugar borscht" to at least look like a decent reinventor. Like Edisson.Uchyot (talk) 07:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
The book Handbook of the Experienced Russian Housewife (1842) mentions beet borsh soup being Malo-rossiiski (small Russian/Ukrainian) AS ONE OF SEVERAL RECEPIES LISTED THERE FOR BORSH INCLUDING BEETS. I Don't know why there is a need to hide that fact. My guess is that saying that specifically beet borsh is referenced as Ukrainian makes it seem like it was a Ukrainian innovation. Hoewever, this is a FALSE claim: the book DOES NOT list beet borsh as Ukrainian, or even as specific to a Ukrainian version of the soup. In this book the Ukrainian version is one of several version of beet soup. Why misrepresent this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.248.138.193 (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
If you can build a consensus to mention this, then you can add it. If not, then stop your edit warring and learn how to work in Wikipedia. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Additional info
I think I am fine with (re)introduction of a certain word for what-we-call-Borscht.
I mean, there are cool words like Rassolnik, Ukha, Shchi, and such. But I don't like how "undefined" can be anything named "borscht".
A similar problem can be met when it comes to "curry chicken". There are thousands of recipes which are only unified by same ingridient: chicken. E.g. anything spicy can count as "curry", even Szechuan Sauce can be mistaken from one. Uchyot (talk) 07:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
The qualification of "Little Russian" indicates not a point of origin but a variation. The same way as if I read a recipe for a "Japanese hamburder" that is not proof of Japanese inventing the hamburger. The problem is you say "anyone nominally Ukrainian," which is very possible... except there is no evidence (and you have not presented any) that the inventor of borsh should be such, and not say, Russian. It could also be "Italians" from the colonies of Tan left in the Azov area... we don't know. That's the point, and since we don't know, the insistence of Ukrainian origin lacks credibility. What I find fascinating is that in 16th century Domostroi we see the documented coming together of "borsh" the plant, with cabbage and beet stew. This is actual evidence and should be foundational to any origins of borsh discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skorepin (talk • contribs) 15:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Also, I have “a gift to young housewives” book. There is a section with several borshes, where I don’t see Ukraine or little Russians mentioned. Though my pages may be different than yours (don’t want to download random stuff). Skorepin (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh! I know, there "as American as an apple pie" saying, while apple pies are... ok, i should avoid whataboutism. Thing is: you don't even seem to dispute the borscht "they eat in resturants"; but the general idea of making a beet soup while trying to call it "borscht".
What I find fascinating is that in 16th century Domostroi we see the documented coming together of "borsh" the plant, with cabbage and beet stew. This is actual evidence and should be foundational to any origins of borsh discussion.
OK, 1500's document is quite important, but what abo-- agh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uchyot (talk • contribs) 07:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Right, so sayings and repeating rumors like that about apple pie are not evidence. Despite them been seen in a book or on a webpage. Actually it's not even whataboutism. Whataboutism is deflecting from an issue by pointing out a similar issue in an unrelated topic. For example if you point to human rights abuses in someone's country and their reply is "well what about the human rights abuses in your country, they are even worse" as opposed to dealing with the first statement. Presenting (seemingly the only) actual proof on an issue is not whataboutism.
The point of getting to the origin of borsh is that it did not start out in today's form. It evolved from budrok plant brewed stew (borsh was the name of the plant), and at some point had budrok substituted for beets. Historically you're not going to find modern borsh for many reasons, e.g. potatoes didn't make it into the Russian empire until after borsh the soup emerged, but are a classic component now. So tracing its development makes sense. How do historians reasonably prove where things originated? The most common is mention in contemporary literary text! Domostroi is fundamentally not whataboutism, it's a direct historical source. This is actual evidence of borsh development. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skorepin (talk • contribs) 14:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
The point of getting to the origin of borsh is that it did not start out in today's form.
is something the article already seems to have. Uchyot (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
It's hard to take seriously being against primary sources - they are literally "primary" because they are evidence/proof. Some guy mentioning something about borsh - just a claim he COULD HAVE MADE UP, is not a reasonable standard of "verifiable" evidence. You cannot build knowledge on such a shaky foundation. History is literally built on primary sources, that is how arguments are reasonably sorted out. If it was all secondary sources then a bunch of people could change history despite the actual available evidence. The previous citations, claiming that is is Ukrainian (and not Russian) simply go against the historical evidence. The historical evidence shows Russia likely played a key role, specifically because of Domostroi and Russia's borders in the 1600s. Might Russians not be involved? sure. The thing is, claiming you know is bs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.248.138.193 (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Your opinion doesn't matter. Read WP:OR for Wikipedia's policy for articles and what constitutes reliable sources on this site. That's all that needs to be said on the matter. Any edits to the article based on original research by the editor will be reverted. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
How are the sources claiming it is "Ukrainian" reliable? We have listed, for example, Historytoday.com mentioning borsh was "probably first made in what is now Ukraine." I could write such an article, would you cite it then? What does someone just saying something make it "reliable?" The sources saying it is Ukrainian also show no such thing, they only mention it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.248.138.193 (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Also, you are wrong about primary sources. Domostroi is not some current, biased, personal account making things up. It is exactly the kind of historical document and "eye witness" account which is used by historians, and the best source in regard to being "verifiable." You can read this here: wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.248.138.193 (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
No, you don't appear to have read any of the links which I gave you concerning WP:RS or WP:OR. We, as editors of Wikipedia, are not in a position to evaluate primary sources and their reliability. That is the work of historians and scholars. We rely on published reliable works, not on primary sources. History Today is a reliable source because their editorial process vets scholars and what they write. If you were to go there and write some nonsense claiming that borsch was not Ukrainian, but Russian because you think so, your work would not be published there. It's a simple process of scholarly work being vetted by editorial boards at various levels. The Daily Mail is not a reliable source, but scholarly web sites are. And published scholarly work is. Primary sources are not by Wikipedia's definition. That link you shared is fine if primary sources were the only sources we had. They are not. We have reliable secondary sources that unequivocally place the origin of beetroot borsch in Ukraine. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
A comment, actually in all three sources, is just a guy just saying it's ukrainian. There is NO proof. So what in the heck makes it reliable?! I've published, so have my colleagues, if they include "borsh is chinese" in their articles, then you'll think so too? There is literally no proof it is Ukrainian and not Russian. Same with saying it's Russian and not Ukrainian. Claiming it's Ukrainian is unsupported nationalism. As is erasing proof of its linguistic evolution just because it is connected to Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.248.138.193 (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Until you learn the way that Wikipedia works, then I suggest you stop your edit warring. Until you build a new WP:CONSENSUS for your use of primary sources, original research, and pro-Russian POV, then you will continue to be reverted. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Your opinion of reliable sources is not of relevance here. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Domostroi should be foundational to borsh history
Latest comment: 3 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion
There is an english-language translation of Domostroi. In chapters 45-54, pp153-165, there is, incredibly, documented historical literature from the 16th century, linking borsh the plant with the preparation of a beet and cabbage stew. This is critical. It's a direct source showing proto-borsh. I'm not aware of any other historical text of such age and implication. It seems reasonable today's borsh evolved from such beginnings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skorepin (talk • contribs) 15:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Your original research is not what we use in Wikipedia. Modern reliable sources, including Russian ones, put the origins of borsch in Ukraine. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I'll try to scepticise one ref. I opened up the first of 3 refs near words "country: Ukrainian", the first ref, and all it say is "borsht, which is actually Ukrainian in origin..." - yet it fails to give a reference to this sentence; it only give "suggested reading: 2 books". This particular claim isn't really referenced. HOWEVER: I am aware pre-Russian Empire had more European land modern Russian Federation has. Uchyot (talk) 08:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh! Said ref means a certain "with a dollop of smetana" soup; not a family of borschts. Uchyot (talk) 09:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Another scepticism of mine: When and where this rudimentary beet sour was first used to make borscht cannot be known. says Alexander Lee in the History Today ref. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
As for proto-borscht mentioned by Skorepin: you fail to pay attention to fact Borscht isn't "any beet soup" but a particular soup listed in the refs. Only the beet soup with "smetana dollop on top" and the other listed ingridients, a bunch of them. If you want to prove "borshchevik + beet" is something invented by a Russian, plz read the whole article first: it's the "smetana dollop" overcomplexed, sophisticated soup "borscht" this article revolves around. Uchyot (talk) 07:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
feels a bit confusing (Ukrainian "stereotypical", traditional borscht only starts in "Novel In-s" section) Uchyot (talk) 09:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Smetana dollop makes borsh? Look, potatoes weren't widely grown in the Russian Empire until 1850, borsh the soup clearly predates that as people used other ingredients like ruttabega - are these not borshes? In Gift to Young Housewives, published shortly thereafter there are many varieties of borsh without the ingredients "necessary" - you're going to say these borshes, listed as such historically are not borshes? Clearly it evolved. Borsh clearly did not one day appear in it's current form. And if you think it did where is the evidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.248.138.193 (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
An academic russian source writes that the book "Domostroi" refers specifically to the plant"БОРЩ", this word does not mean dish (food) "borscht". ----Lanamy (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Well; that looks to be true; although "domostroi" is stortened to "dm". Same can be said about "preparing" borscht for winter. Uchyot (talk) 09:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
This is a multivolume edition [13]; there is a special reference book for this series of books: here is an explanation of this "dm" - "Domostroi" [14].--Lanamy (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Svekolnik as in "not Borscht" question
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Should we separate something called "Svekolnik" from Borscht? As far as I know, Borsht is, first and foremost, a Ukrainian dish, while "Svekolnik" is literally Russian for "beet"+"er" suffix; anything soupy with lots of beet would be a Svekolnik in Russian, but mistkenly called "Borscht".
Additional info: I remeber my regular dissappointment when I was promised borsht, but had a simplified beet+potatoes+cabbage mix, sometimes even without carrots, let alone spice and meat. Uchyot (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Svekolnik is already mentioned in the Cold borscht section of the article. For the moment there doesn't seem to be enough information on this topic to warrant a separate article. — Kpalion(talk) 22:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
AFAIK, word "Svekolnik" is freely used to name any beet soup which fails to feel borcht-like (like vegetable/bean/onion mean-less beet soup) rather than synonym for kholodnik.
Additinal info: "kholodnik"-like non-soup dish can be found in the USSR-legacy cuisine: "selyodka pod shuboi", literally herring under "furcoat" of eggs and/or mayo, plus sliced/rubbed/minced beet "coat".Uchyot (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Again. Aside from Pohlyobkin's definition of "svekolnik", there is Ushakov's definition, as well as Ozhegov's definition from XX century: Svekolnik word is a word which generally describes a dish made of beet. Therefore, "svekolnik" is not an equivalent of "kholodnik", and this article fails to show that.;
Umbrella term
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I find it confusing Borscht is consensus-decided to be Ukrainian with links attached referring to the beet soup; while there is an ancient word "borscht", a bunch of soups named "borscht" and thus, an umbrella term "borscht" for a bunch of ancient soups from Central Europe in origin (e.g. not quite related to Ukrainians/the country of Ukraine). Uchyot (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
The meaning of the "ancient word" is irrelevant except in the etymology section. In English, the word "borscht" refers only to the modern beetroot variety. The "umbrella term" is an obsolete Eastern European issue that is meaningless to English speakers and therefore irrelevant in the English Wikipedia. Can you find references to non-beet soups that are called "borsch" in English? Of course, but they are vanishingly rare so they should be mentioned in the etymology and history sections for reference, but the article as a whole is only about borscht, what English speakers and the vast majority of world-level references define borscht as. The very fact that the article is named "borscht" and not "borsch" should be prima facie evidence that this article is focused on the meaning of "borscht" in English and that is beet-based from Ukraine. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for providing the explanation. I can see the point now. Thanks. Uchyot (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Is it Ukrainian of origin?
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
There is no information indicating Borsh is of Ukrainian origins except two historical cookbooks (listed on this page) that list a “Ukrainian borsh” alongside other variants. Poland and Russia have no less claim. Is anyone aware of any historical evidence to support the claim of Ukrainian origin? If so please cite it. Ukrainian “origin” claims seems to have come alongside gastronomic politics… Skorepin (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
The Ukrainian claim is long-standing and is of solid historical provenance, supported by more than just "two historical cookbooks" (I believe they are listed in the article). There is virtually no historical evidence for Polish or Russian origin other than placing the origin in that part of Poland that became Ukraine or that part of Russia that became Ukraine. The WP:CONSENSUS for Ukrainian origin long predates the very recent "gastronomic politics". If you actually look at the origins of the recent "gastronomic politics" issue, you'll probably find that it has its origin in putin's Russia after 2014 and not in Ukraine. I also daresay that "historical cookbooks" are going to be FAR more reliable than anything written recently (exactly because of the "gastronomic politics" involved). Even Webster's second edition English dictionary from the mid-20th century puts its origin in "Little Russia" (Ukraine). --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
:::Borscht origin:::
Latest comment: 2 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion
According to cited references, Borscht is originated from the Russian Empire and was already served in Lithuania, Finland, Poland and White Russian Empigrés spread borscht into the US after Russian Civil War.
--2001:718:1E03:5128:9D4A:27DC:CFA2:E7A9 (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
This has been discussed repeatedly already and the reliable sources (many from the Soviet Union) categorically place the origin of beetroot borsch in Ukraine specifically. Read the past discussions. WP:CONSENSUS has been reached already on this issue. You can write on your calendar that within a week of putin proclaiming once again that Ukraine belongs to Russia this issue appears here again. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 23:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I remember the "vanishing" rareness of non-beet kinds of borscht. But the boundary between those and the beet borscht is unmaintained in this article, to be quite honest. I would recommend putting "without beets" section down to the bottom of the article - just to avoid the confusion. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 11:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Happy 2022 to everyone! I think I know what I wanted. You see... the "without beets" section could use to be separate from the "variations" section. Instead, IMHO, it should be under "in culture" section, but above the "see also" section. Can I make it that way, please?
Reason the way I see it: if the non-beet soups (or rather, the "borscht" word for them) is "vanishingly rare", then they should stay somewhere under "history" and under "in culture" sections for the best borscht. In other words: style. "Out and away" soups without beets should not bunch along with "the variation(s)"; the "best borscht" has plenty of "modifications". So, I moved "without beets" soups next to "see also" section. Because those are mentionable but not really related to the actual variations. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 09:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I also think it's a stylistically fitting to put "In Chinese cuisine, a soup known as luó sòng tāng..." and "Three grand soups in Japanese culture" close one to another (especially with "In Japan, beetroots are uncommon and often substituted by tomatoes." sentence there) 81.89.66.133 (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I disagree about relegating the non-beet variants to the bottom of the article. They should be discussed in the "Variations" section, which is the only logical place to discuss any variants of the soup, regardless of how popular they are. Also, citation needed for these variants being "vanishingly rare".
As for the Japanese variant, a verifiable source is needed before it can be mentioned in the main body of the article. — Kpalion(talk) 00:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for sharing the disagreement. "Vanishingly rare" was TaivoLinguist's answer to a certain edit before. Apparently, TaivoLinguist considers "default borscht" to be a beet soup, not a sour soup. Otherwise, it would be OK to fix "origin" of borscht (Origin: Ukraine ---> Origin: Ukraine (beetroot variant)); but it was reverted by TaivoLinguist. 2A00:1FA0:6B5:790C:0:4E:B3E9:E901 (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
No, it's a claim from the "Three grand soups" article, since "borscht" and "tom yam" are counted as one soup there. 2A00:1FA0:6B5:790C:0:4E:B3E9:E901 (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
>I disagree about relegating the non-beet variants to the bottom of the article. They should be discussed in the "Variations" section
Contradict6s with "ingridients" list above
I made "variants without beets" near usual "variations". It definite;y should be shown separately. It says "beet soup" above, so "variants without beets" should stay apart from regular borsch variants.109.252.65.4 (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Variations of B. found in "typical ingridients and preparation" section
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
This "Typical" section mentions quite an array of variations:
Fasting varieties are typically made with fish stock to avoid the use of meat...
...while purely vegetarian recipes often substitute forest mushroom broth for the stock.[15]
Stale rye bread is often added to hasten the process, but usually omitted in Jewish recipes, as chametz (leavened bread) would make the sour unfit for Passover meals. Sugar, salt and lemon juice may be also added to balance the flavor. After about 2–5 days (or 2–3 weeks without the bread), the deep red, sweet and sour liquid may be strained and is ready to use. It is added to borscht shortly before the soup is done, as prolonged boiling would cause the tart flavor to dissipate.[16] The beet sour is known in Slavic languages as kvas[c] (literally 'sour, acid'; compare kvass) and in Yiddish as rosl[d] (from a Slavic word originally referring to any brine obtained by steeping salted meat or vegetables in water; compare Russian rassol[e] 'pickle juice', Polish rosół 'broth').
This distinctive feature of borscht derives from the practice of slow cooking in the Russian oven (traditional masonry stove, used for both cooking and heating), wherein the differences in cooking times of individual ingredients had to be taken into account in order to ensure that all components reach doneness at the same time. The importance of this method is reflected in the Russian language, where a variant in which all vegetables are added raw directly into the stock is referred to by the diminutive form borshchok[b] rather than borshch.[17]
I think: "Depending on the recipe, some of these components may be omitted or substituted." is enough for "typical" borscht.81.89.66.133 (talk) 09:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Beet sour vs "3 to 6 hours"
ALSO:
The dominant tastes in borscht are sweet and sour. This combination is traditionally obtained by adding beet sour.[17] It is made by covering sliced beetroots with lukewarm preboiled water and allowing bacteria to ferment some of the sugars present in beetroots into dextran (which gives the liquid a slightly viscous consistency), mannitol, acetic acid and lactic acid.[19] Stale rye bread is often added to hasten the process, but usually omitted in Jewish recipes, as chametz (leavened bread) would make the sour unfit for Passover meals. Sugar, salt and lemon juice may be also added to balance the flavor. After about 2–5 days (or 2–3 weeks without the bread), the deep red, sweet and sour liquid may be strained and is ready to use. It is added to borscht shortly before the soup is done, as prolonged boiling would cause the tart flavor to dissipate.[16] The beet sour is known in Slavic languages as kvas[c] (literally 'sour, acid'; compare kvass) and in Yiddish as rosl[d] (from a Slavic word originally referring to any brine obtained by steeping salted meat or vegetables in water; compare Russian rassol[e] 'pickle juice', Polish rosół 'broth'). Apart from its employment in borscht, it may be also added to prepared horseradish or used as pot roast marinade.[20][21]
However, modern red borscht is cooked "3 to 6 hours". I think a mention of "beet sour" is needed. My mom would use prefab vinegar instead of making beet sour for weeks (despite cooking beet as a vegetable to add).
81.89.66.133 (talk) 09:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
UPDATE: I moved the info onto own "Beet sour" subsection because:
It will be easier to navigate this way. What if a novice housekeeper wants to look up how to cook without the real sour, but with a plausible substitute? The sour is hard to make properly (and not everyone has a balcony, let alone a cellar these days).
What if someone aims for a traditional borscht, but fails to make the sour in time? It's hard to buy "prefab" sour, if not impossible.
A young housewife may have a problem reading too many text, so I separated the "sour" part from the info on "stock and vegetables".81.89.66.133 (talk) 08:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Borscht vs Borshchock
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
IMO, "borshchock" soup may have taste different from "normal" traditional borscht as long as various vegetables' juices mix up during the boiling phase of cooking. In borshchok, the taste of various veggies end up mixing each with other this way. I think this is revelavnt (otherwise, "borshchock" should be a "variation" of borscht). This is why I mention vaccum-sealed "borscht kits". 81.89.66.133 (talk) 11:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I would like to add now: today the article looks OK to me; it doesn't bunch different things together. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I think I can finally see the pattern of traditional borscht
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
I think now I know what has happened to borscht in what-now-is-Ukraine: it could have got it first "beet" traits while still being a sour soup from "history" chapter of the article here.
The borscht's sour taste charactarised by its "beet sour" is the very thing I can accept when it comes to the consensus.
I mean, I was confused because no one in family makes "borscht" soup sour, but there is a pleasant sourness in some cafe/resturants' borscht (Moscow). Now I see: there was "beet sour" stage of developing borscht. TBH, this information had been slipping from my watch for months...2A00:1FA0:63A:14E0:0:2E:873E:3501 (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
OK, good thing we have "beet sour" so we can quickly look up and see where it all started. 2A00:1FA0:4852:8CEC:0:52:1096:8201 (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
ADDITIONAL INFO: To be fair, my family had never cooked "real" borscht with the tradition of using "beet sour" - or whatever sour to complement the "beet soup". So, in this sense, saying "it's all about the beets" is too broad, as if it's a synonym to "beet soup" at this point. I wanted to see where the "original Ukrainian beet borscht" is at and it took me MONTHS to unravel the answer, well hidden in "ingridients and preparation" section. 2A00:1FA0:42D:1A4E:0:44:1347:D01 (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
UNESCO Inscribes Ukrainian Borscht Soup As Endangered Heritage
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The UN's cultural agency, UNESCO, on Friday inscribed borscht on its list of endangered cultural Ukrainian heritage, a recognition sought urgently by Kviv after the invasion by Russia. [15][16]P37307 (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Soviet era borscht as an addition to "Variations".
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Can someone please add this link to "in USSR" section? Unlike "Academic.ru", this "Niv.ru" site uses 1976 version of the Soviet book, not an undated one. Also, it appears this USSR book "reconfirms" the very idea to make the soup boldly sour to be "Ukrainian style borscht". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.89.66.133 (talk) 07:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
UPDATE: Here's my request: please add soviet not-sour-just-beety soup as a Russian variation. "Encyclopedia of Housekeeping" - needs aforementioned link (which be "google.translated" easily because it's an already OCR'd text, not just a scan) 81.89.66.133 (talk) 07:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Vienna sausage
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I would like to ask: is it necessary to specify sauscisses used in Moscow recipe of borscht as "Vienna sausage"? In Moscow recipe, a word "sosiska" is used and it comes from French "sauscisse, which is not a synonym for particular Vienna kind of sausage. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
OK, I just re-visited "vienna sausage" article. Apparently, it is indeed a name for an array of sausages in English rather than some particular recipe, so it is ... similar to Russian "sosiska". Closing question. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 07:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
2 more variations of borscht in Russia
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion
1) Russians tend to label non-sours beet soups as "borschts"; even RU-Wiki fails to mention the sourness part as a mandatory one.81.89.66.133 (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
2) There is a new variant of borscht in Russia, that involves factory-made mayo as the source of both the sour and the tart flavors. The practice is relatively new. In a sense, "not-soured borshch" + mayo = sour borscht is a viable option. Due to point 1, various culinary enthusiasts mark mayo as a horrible dirt cheap replacement for sour cream, not as a way to sour it. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
History: "Origin" chapter should be "Precursor"
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion
The soup known as "Borscht" is supposed to have beets (preferrably fermented ones). In this sense, no-beet hogweed soup is not "that very Ukrainian soup" with sour beet, but its predcessor or precursor. Therefore, the chapter should be renamed as "Precursor" to avoid confusion. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 06:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
EDIT: I mean, we have "one of the earliest mentions" tied to 1584, but that's not the case: the thing is, the ancient hogweed soup known as borscht is too distant from the beet borscht. Referring to the ancient hogweed borscht as "origin" of the beet borscht means confusing every Slav outside of Ukraine. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 12:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
So where is 't' in Борщ? 'Щ' is read as 'shch' or 'sch'. Where did you get 't'?
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
So where is 't' in Борщ? 'Щ' is read as 'shch' or 'sch'. Where did you get 't'? 37.212.57.131 (talk) 07:51, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
English borrowed the Yiddish word, not the Ukrainian word. The Yiddish word ends with a "t". Read the Etymology section. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 11:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Once again to Ukraine
Latest comment: 1 year ago14 comments5 people in discussion
An editor is currently engaged in trying to erase Ukraine from the history of borscht. Reliable sources are unequivocal in placing the origin of borscht in the territory of Ukraine. While Ukraine has been part of larger powers down through history, it is important for modern readers to easily identify the location of origins with modern names for places. We tell readers that X was invented in Dnipro, not in "Yekaterinoslav". Thus, we tell our readers that borscht was developed in Ukraine, not in some random location in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or in the Russian Empire. This consensus is long-standing here and is based on reliable sources. TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
"Place of origin" makes more sense this way, by the way, to me now. Thanks 81.89.66.133 (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
In fact, ½ of previous edits against "country: Ukraine" can be summed up as "there was no such country back then". However, the novel edit "place of origin: Ukraine" and the explanation on how modern names are used to make identification easier... ...can pretty much ease that tension. Which means, my more-than-a-year itch to edit "country: Ukraine" string has been resolved while staying within the consensus. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 09:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Oh, an a little heads up on Russian naming traditions. In many books, one can see lines like "happened in X (now Y)" (example: Konstantinopol (now Stambul). Yet the opposite "Y (formerly X)" is, should I say, vanishingly rare. In this sense, some people still can be a little salty about "the very idea" to use modern names instead of older ones. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 13:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
So in russia a history of the UN talks about "New Amsterdam (now New York)"? Since the russian army is fighting a 21st century war with mid-20th century tactics and equipment, it makes sense I guess. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Nah, you're bringing up the year of 1987 and plus/minus 35 years around it, not 1664. Well, my history schoolbook used to mention New Amsterdam. "New York (before 1664: New Amsterdam)" is the very "vanishingly rare" exception from my schoolbooks I remember. So hey, you hit the spot. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Before 20 century Ukraine mean borderland REGION in Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth between Poland and Russia, not a country. Maybe more accurate will be using name Galicia or just whole Eastern Europe, because this soup is also Polish, Russian, Baltic and Jewish.
It’s really stupid that soup it’s used for political purpose of building and identity of 30 years old country by UPA/UON nationalism style stolen from other cultures by people how made Volhynia massacre Polish and Jews genocide.
Maybe to separate 30 years country of Ukraine from centuries history of region of many cultures it’s better to create Ukraine (region) to stop cultural appropriation made by Ukrainian nationalists of this rich multicultural region Joaziela (talk) 11:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
One last time trying to explain something simple to someone who doesn't want to hear simple answers, we use the modern names for places so that our readers can easily identify where things happened. It's not about your anti-Ukrainian Russian propaganda, it's about reader friendliness. It's quite simple, actually. I'm going to ignore you now if you want to continue with this ridiculous rant and persist in refusing to listen. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 12:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Could you please go bak to Pretzel Sticks. There's no "country" for borscht, there's "place of origin". 109.252.69.187 (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
100% agree with you, that is what all rational people are asking for, link to place of origin- region. This region is borderland region historically between Poland and Russia.
So if you want to put active link, maybe its need to be created Ukraine (region), but don’t put Ukraine country (30 years old), what is linked now.
If it have to be linked to country why not Ukraine SSR or Nazi Ukraine or other Ukraine-like country named in 20 century, before that time it was name for region. There is somewhere some borscht older than one particular country that you forced to link by your propaganda agenda Joaziela (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Your anti-Ukrainian bias is still on full display in your comment. It should be clear to you that "modern" means "today", not 100 years ago. Beet-based red borscht originated in a part of the world that is now part of the independent country of Ukraine. That's all there is to the issue. Your hatred of Ukraine is irrelevant. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
There is no hatred, it’s just objectivism. This is encyclopedia, and it should be universal. You are putting a link to country that in that exact shape survive only 23 years and now (in opinion of minority, no hatred, you are really obsessed and full of propaganda) is smaller of Republic of Crimea, Donetsk People's Republic, Luhansk People's Republic. And what going to happen when it’s break more in West Ukraine and East Ukraine (which one than will be linked then) or maybe conquer some more terrain. History didn’t end and by how it’s go we see this territory is very fluid. In any source you going to look authors mean the Ukraine region, not connected to today country Joaziela (talk) 09:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
I mean, there WAS a plaque named "country of origin". It has already been removed by replacing it with "region of origin". Should Ukraine split into separate halves... this we fix. But that split would not be really related to borscht. 2A00:1370:81A2:6C08:C0B7:B67E:40EC:6485 (talk) 13:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
I also think Taivo is full of Propaganda class memes. Not that i blame him or doubt his experise. *Angry Litihanian noises* 109.252.69.187 (talk) 13:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the 
But we have a consensus. In late November you tried to change the consensus. I think we have beaten this horse to death. It is time to move on. 
![[10]](https://i.imgur.com/upcwtlq.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](https://likbez.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Khmelnytsky_1651.jpg){kind=link}
An academic russian source writes that the book "Domostroi" refers specifically to the plant "БОРЩ", this word does not mean dish (food) "borscht".