Talk:Lutefisk

message: Let us cut to the chase here: Less than 3% of Norwegian prefers either cod or lutefisk for their Christmas dinner. About 50% will eat pork, and 40% lamb.
Somewhere between 10-20% percent of Norwegian will eat lutefisk at least once a year.
--Sparviere (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popularity in Norway 

message: The article about Lutefisk claims: "Lutefisk (prounounced loo-te-fisk) is a well-known food of Norway and Sweden (prounounced loo-ta-fisk)which consists of white fish (normally Cod) soaked in lye as a preservative, then dried until it hardens. It is edible after multiple rinsings of water to remove the otherwise poisonous lye, and has a jelly-like consistency after washing."
This is not correct. The fish is dried first, Stockfish, and then soaked in lye or another base (like birch ash) mixed with water (the preservative is actually the drying). After this it is rinsed in water. And another thing; it tastes delicious :)  Kaiolav72
: I think Kaiolav72 is right. I will try to find a reference and correct the article when I have time. Jonathunder 21:32, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)
He's right about the sequence, not the taste. Drying, then lyeing. Then water to remove the lye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.212.161.16 (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Process

message: : Lungfisk is a modification of the lutefisk recipe. Instead of being made from whitefish, it is made from lungfish.
I removed this from the text. A user's one and only contribution. Unable to verify anywhere. Hoax. Algae 06:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed lungfisk from article

message: The change made by Sykil ("the real swede") from "Lutefisk (pronounced loo-te-fisk in Norway and the United States, and loot-fisk in Sweden)" to "Lutefisk (pronounced loo-te-fisk in Norway and the United States, and lutfisk in Sweden)" seems wrong to me.  "Lutfisk" is the spelling, not how to pronounce it, it would be like changin "loo-te-fisk" into "Lutefisk" for Norwegian pronounciation.  Which is wrong, of course, since Scandinavian "u" is closer to the english "oo" sound.  But not beeing a real sweede I'm not 100% sure.  Opinions?
Kaiolav72 01:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're completely right. up+land 07:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Changed back the sweedish pronounciation to "loot-fisk" Kaiolav72 18:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would you hate me if I added the following tag to the article? - Haukur 09:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Absolutely not. We're all aware it's pseudo-phonetic as of now. The problem as I see it with IPA here is that most people (me included) don't know how to write or read it. But one can of course learn. Kaiolav72 16:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I know. That's why I'm hesitant. The pronunciation information which is there now - while it looks unprofessional and isn't quite accurate - might be helpful to more people than the IPA which will replace it. Audio files would be good. - Haukur 17:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  It seems right. On the basis that I'm norwegian and therefore has some knowledge of sweedish. The norwegian pron. should be with a shorter, but similar "u", and an "e" like in English ten (10). I'm only guessing this, but I would think that American pron would be somewhere inbetween (with a "oo"-sound +  the "e"). Could you try to give an example on the Norw. with this info? Kaiolav72 21:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe . That ɛ is the e in ten. It isn't a schwa ə, is it?--Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've said it 30 times here now, and you may be right. If spoken "correctly" it will be with a clear "e"-sound, but in real-life I guess it's said with a indistinct vowel-sound just to close the gap between the "t" and the "f" (if I understand it correctly, a schwa is this). It's of course dependent on dialect, I say it "lutfesk" myself :) The "i" sound in "fisk" I'm unshure of too, I think it's "front"-i, not "near-front"-ɪ. As you understand, I'm not into phonetics, maybe someone here could help you better Kaiolav72 03:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: I notice that :Category:Edible fish has been avoided.  ;-)  Gene Nygaard 15:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: Chinese prexerved duck eggs (the yummy and yucky kind that have translucent purple eggwhite, and smell of sulfur dioxide) are made with lye. Shouldn't there be links to all foods preserved with lye? There may be three such foods...
I added something to the lye entry for this, but probably there should be more here as well.
69.248.252.209 02:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lye!

message: The "best way to prepare lutefisk" is a nearly direct ripoff of Bill Engvall's Dorkfish comedy routine, from his CD of the same name.  A dorkfish is not meant to be a lutefisk, but is its own thing.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moY9aNiYBHI  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.43.141.48 (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Jokes

message: This article seem to focus a bit too much on lutfisk in Norway when as far as I know this dish is as common in Sweden. (if not more common, I don't have any numbers but I have certainly been served it more often in Sweden than in Norway). /Cygnus78 (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Norwegian angle

message: A link is to be used upon the first mention of a word and not second, third, etc. mentions. ask123 (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  linking guideline 

message: A linking guideline is to be given the first time there's a problem with linking, not the second, third, etc. time. EEng 03:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  linking guideline guideling 

message: re: "It is made from stockfish (air-dried whitefish) or dried/salted whitefish (klippfisk) and soda lye (lut). Its name literally means "lye fish", because it is made using caustic lye soda derived from potash minerals."
i believe potash strictly refers to potassium salts whereas soda strictly refers to sodium compounds.
although most wouldn't know the difference, they should not be used interchangeably.  c'mon, this is an encyclopedia or something, right?
in addition, i think that you translated lut too specifically... i believe lut just means lye (alkali metal hydroxide salts.. but rarely referring to anything other than NaOH or KOH). FTFY.
i also made a couple of grammar edits just for the lols.
i don't really know [or care] if i'm properly following guidelines.  
"and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (173.15.83.69 (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Jonathunder (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  some changes 

message: Does no one have any better information than what's here? I've heard the theory about preserving fish for the winter, but since the dish often starts with dried fish anyway, the logic of it is suspect. The way the last paragraph is written seems quite implausible as well:
"the use of lye to soften a hard, indigestible base is actually a fairly common practice with many kinds of food" -- this seems irrelevant since the fish (when cooked, as it is anyway even when made into lutefisk) is neither hard nor indigestible. Keno (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin 

message: Lutefisk was a major plot point in episodes of both King of the Hill and The Sylvester and Tweety Mysteries.   --The_Iconoclast (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular culture 

message: Since when does Olaus Magnus constitute Norwegian literature? He was a Swedish former bishop writing in Italian exile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.14.239.90 (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olaus Magnus Norwegian literature 

message: What is the innovation here:  akvavit and beer, or the use of lutefisk at festive and ceremonial occasions?  "Today, akvavit and beer often accompany the meal due to its use at festive and ceremonial occasions. This is a recent innovation, however; due to its preservative qualities, lutefisk has traditionally been a common "everyday" meal in wintertime."--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eating and innovation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Lutefisk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140201184401/http://dinmat.aftenbladet.no/Temasider/Artikler/Mattrender/Nordisk-kj%C3%B8kken/Lutefisk-til-himmels to http://dinmat.aftenbladet.no/Temasider/Artikler/Mattrender/Nordisk-kj%C3%B8kken/Lutefisk-til-himmels
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Lutefisk. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110816220836/http://fusion.stolaf.edu/mess/index.cfm?section=article&article_number=1642&issue_volume=117&issue_number=18&issue_date=5%2F7%2F2004 to http://fusion.stolaf.edu/mess/index.cfm?section=article&article_number=1642&issue_volume=117&issue_number=18&issue_date=5%2F7%2F2004
*Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20011129110948/http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~atman/ic/lutefisk.html to http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~atman/ic/lutefisk.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050311021729/http://faculty.millikin.edu/~kborei.library.mu/Swede-L/santess/chemstry/lutfisk.htm to http://faculty.millikin.edu/~kborei.library.mu/Swede-L/santess/chemstry/lutfisk.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061106224933/http://www.oldlutheran.com/humor/lutelament.html to http://www.oldlutheran.com/humor/lutelament.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091225185916/http://bizarre-blog.travelchannel.com/read/bizarre-foods-in-minnesota to http://bizarre-blog.travelchannel.com/read/bizarre-foods-in-minnesota
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lutefisk. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050404173231/http://www.surfminnesota.net/lutfisk.html to http://www.surfminnesota.net/lutfisk.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi, the oldest recipe for lutefisk is actually given in a German cookbook of 1553 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabina_Welserin). Going full OR, SYNTH and other Wiki-sins, I'd wager that the recipe has roots in continental revival of dead cod from stockfish to an edible meal; perhaps if it was corrupted in some manner or degree. That lutefisk has survived in Scandinavia is par for the course of that particular area, which preserved the medieval 8-string violin and folk dresses based on 1700 French fashion long after the rest of Europe had abandoned and forgotten them. Now, such speculations are neither here nor there; but the cookbook reference is a solid fact. Any ideas of how to incorporate it? T 88.91.200.88 (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of lutefisk 

message: Hi, the sentence "Preserved fish provided protein during the long winter months ..." is somewhat misleading, considering that winter _is_ the season for e.g. the Lofot fisheries for cod, one of the major suppliers of dried and/or salted cod. While ensuring a stable supply of food throughout the year is of course essential, I think it would work better if the reference to one specific season were omitted. FWIW, the critical period of the year for most Norse wasn't winter, but spring and early summer, when most of the food and fodder had already been consumed, and harvest season was still many months away; this was called "vårknipa", lit. "the spring pinch". That's when you need your stockfish, salted herring, and fenalår. T 46.212.185.190 (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins 

message: Wtf? 2600:1700:80E0:32F0:484E:25BC:66E3:60BB (talk) 03:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there not an actual picture of the living fish????