Talk:Lutefisk

Popularity in Norway

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)

I moved this section out of the article and into the discussion for two reasons: 1) These are not verified/attested statements, and 2) it is poorly written.

"Lutefisk has its fair share of devotees: in 2001, Norwegians consumed 2,055 tonnes of lutefisk in their homes and approximately 560 tonnes in restaurants. (To put this quantity in perspective, 2,400 tonnes would fill approximately 80 full size semi trucks or a medium length goods train). Annual sales of lutefisk in North America exceed those in Norway."

If someone can substantiate these claims, I will be happy to move it back. --Sparviere (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Process

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)

Picture

This article has gotten much better. Many people have added good stuff. Two more things I think we should have: a picture, if anyone has a good free image, and a bit about how Lutefisk is cooked. Jonathunder 22:16, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

I'm going to make it soonish, and will upload a picture afterwards :) And about the taste, which I'm right about, it's rather "grownup". Therefore it surprises me that it's eaten in the US - as my general impression is that preferring white marshmallows over blue and pink ones is regarded pretty "grownup". Kaiolav72 12:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

There's a nice picture on [Aftenposten|http://cache.aftenposten.no/multimedia/archive/00339/_1234509_jpg_339475g.jpg], but not for use in WP, I'm afraid. I'll try to snap a picture for this article tonight (and give you a first-hand account of the taste if you need another). Wish me luck. Enno 13:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Took the picture and uplaoded it. But maybe you have a nicer one, or an alternative presentation with different side-dishes. -- Enno 22:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Enno, thanks for the picture! Just had my first lutefisk meal this season (late, yes, but that's how it went this year), but there was too much hunger and akvavit involved to get a decent picture out of it. Agree; more pictures should be included. I also vote for the inclusion of some info on salting. Quite crucial business.... --62.101.198.35 12:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree, nice job with the picture :) Haven't made the dish yet, so no alternative picture from me - but I may upload when it's done if you wish, to have something to choose from. No alternative sidedish I'm afraid; mashed green peas and bacon. The article on Stockfish this side links to has gotten a lot better, by the way. 62.101.198.35: do you mean salting when preparing? It's one opinion that the water should be "sea-salt" if prepared that way. If made in a oven, one could just add salt and no water, and cover&cook, to get a firmer lutefisk. Kaiolav72 17:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

In the Upper Midwest, where I live, there are many communities where the majority of the population are descendants of immigrants from a particular Nordic country. For example, my grandfather went to a Minnesota public school where nearly every child spoke Norwegian on the playground. This influences our tastes and probably also our pronunciation of Lutefisk. I would gently suggest, too, that your "general impression" of American tastes may be a stereotype. Like most stereotypes, it should not be overgeneralized even if it has some element of truth.

I'm looking foreward to seeing the picture. Jonathunder 15:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to appologize. It was mostly ment as a joke, even though I'm somewhat tired of the "uneatable", "jelly", "poisonous" and "Weapon of Mass Destruction"-jokes going around. I'm looking forward to taking the picture, as it implies getting to eat it afterwards :) No harm ment. Kaiolav72 17:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

No offense taken. The jokes about Lutefisk do get old, I agree, but they are part of popular culture and should be mentioned. Vær så god! Jonathunder 17:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

My opinion on the taste

For those who need yet another opinion, I remember when I was a young boy and ate it, and though "what does this taste like? it doesn't taste bad, nor good, it is white like egg white, and has almost the same consistence too, and taste about the same." --Fred-Chess July 5, 2005 22:51 (UTC)

I propse we make a category called appaling christmas food where we put junk like this :-) --Fred-Chess July 5, 2005 22:52 (UTC)

I noted that there's no WP article about Rakefisk, which should be mentioned somewhere in case an unsuspecting tourist might have it offered to him while in Norway. I'm just not qualified enough to make one :-) Enno 13:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I have taken your challenge and created a article about Rakfisk please read and comment it!--Njård 03:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed lungfisk from article

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)

Pronunciation

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)

You're completely right. up+land 07:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Changed back the sweedish pronounciation to "loot-fisk" Kaiolav72 18:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Would you hate me if I added the following tag to the article? - Haukur 09:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

{{cleanup-ipa}}

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)

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)

I'm working on IPA cleaning... It seems that "loot-fisk" should be /luːtfɪsk/. That is, with a long, tense oo as in English boo, and a lax i as in English fish. I'm not native but Swedish language at least says that those sounds exist in Swedish. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

Maybe /lutɛfɪsk/. 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)

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)

Cooking

I added a cooking section, based on the Icelandic cookbook Matreiðslubók Nönnu, by Nanna Rögnvaldsdóttir, ISBN 9979103981. I double checked it (partly) at [1]. I don't want to turn Wikipedia into a cooking manual so I didn't give the ratio fish/salt but I can add it if people want. Stefán Ingi 00:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone actually eats this in Iceland?? Have you ever had some? :) - Haukur 09:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep. My wife has partly Norwegan roots, so her mother has sometimes made it. At one time she arranged a dinner party where I had it. It was very good in my opinion. A friend of ours also came to the party. He was very sceptical, to say the least. I think he was almost convinced he was going to get killed. I find that it can be great fun to describe to people how to prepare this and also the Icelandic specialities of kæstur hákarl (shark) and kæst skata (skate). In the Icelandic dishes you have to get the poison out of the material but with the lutefisk, there is of course the added bonus that you start with dried fish, an edible and very stable material, and pour poison over it! which you then have to get out again. We have given out small pieces of the shark to Brits in parties, to very mixed reviews. Stefán Ingi 09:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Norwegian roots, I see. But do you agree that this is not, in fact, an Icelandic dish and that giving an Icelandic name for it in the article is a bit misleading?

As you already know my favorite food is the Faroese "skerpikjöt". Just leave the mutton hanging for whatever microbes happen along. I'm fine with "kæstur hákarl" and I like "kæst skata" but the Faroese have some way of treating whale meat so that it tastes incredibly vile. Neither my brother nor I could eat more than one bite and both of us are fans of shark and skerpikjöt. I'll have to try lutefisk. - Haukur 15:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, it's certainly quite uncommon in Iceland so we probably shouldn't give the Icelandic name. As for the Faroese whale meat, I can only guess. In Iceland it used to be quite common to let it lay in milk overnight before cooking to get rid of the bad odor (þrái), apparently though that's not such a good idea, the odor is only from the outermost layer so it's easier to just cut that off just before frying it. Maybe the Faroese who cooked for you haven't heard of this. Stefán Ingi 15:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It was cured in some way, I don't know how. It was quite hard. - Haukur 16:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

An IP editor added the following: "You can also cook lutefisk by wrapping it in chesecloth and suspending it by means of chopsticks over a pan of salted, boiling water for 11 minutes. Lutefisk can also be microwaved, though finding the propper cooking time is difficult." I am moving it here because this seems unlikely to me, but if anyone has a source or knows for certain it is correct, add it back. Jonathunder 17:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree, it seems funny. It is generally hard to put a time on cooking, and even more so with lutefisk, so 11 minutes seems too exact. I'm sure it could be microwaved, but so could pizza and steak - without us telling people they should. It is quite possible it can be damped, but then salted first. Chopsticks and damped in cloth over salted water seems like a bit of nonsense to me. Kaiolav72 21:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, the added: "When cooking and eating lutefisk, be careful to clean the lutefisk off of pans, plates, and utensils right away. Lutefisk left over night becomes nearly impossible to remove." strikes me as unnecessary in a encyclopedia. True - it sticks to plates and so on when dried, but so does all fish. It's very glueish. In fact it has been used as glue. Or am I just being grumpy? Kaiolav72 21:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Mabey not really sure. Is lutefysk ever made from northern pike? It sounds like a good way to prepare pike and would be well accompanied by pasta. Anyone from North Dakota? what do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.165.113.196 (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Misconception of Norwegians and lutefisk

This section is very exaggerated, in my opinion. I'm young and urban (from Oslo) and absolutely love it, and most of the people I know like it or tolerate it. The dish is a lot more popular than it was a couple of decades ago, as younger people has become more aware of traditional Norwegian food. The only fact the contributor has to support his opinion, is a poll (no documentation) stating that 2 per cent of Norwegians eat lutefisk Christmas Eve. I found another survey [2] (done by Resarch International for the Norwegian state's office for meat) stating that 20 per cent eats lutefisk before Christmas, and I'm absolutely sure the percentage will be much higher when you count Norwegians eating lutefisk in the period December 20—31. In Eastern Norway (where most people live) it is very usual to have rib roast for Christmas Eve, pinnekjøtt on Christmas Day and lutefisk for Boxing Day. Devanatha 16:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, False consensus effect, eh? Just because lutefisk is popular among your group of friends, I don't think it has had a great ressurection among young Norwegians. It's still very much a niche-thing among Norwegians, a lot like får-i-kål and pinnekjøtt, some groups of friends gather round for annual parties to eat it, while the rest of the population hardly ever touches it.Salmon 10:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Lutefisk is NOT a nichething among Norwegians anymore. It is very trendy and in. You dont have to live long in Norway to find that out.--Stiangutten (talk) 11:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? Lutefisk is aten by LOTS of people. Your comments on fårikål just shows you have little knowledge about Norwegian eating habits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.63.236 (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree less. Your statement may be right for a very narrow age-group, but most people I know of a certain age enjoys both pinnekjøtt, får-i-kål and lutefisk. I can't see why the stores are packed with those items at the seasons if you were right. --Kaiolav72 16:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I suggest remove. The survey you found (which probably was the origin of the numbers) is obviously biased, and has no

information on the background of the survey (i.e. number or selection of respondents etc.) The mere fact that it is produced by

an agency representing meat (as opposed to fish), is also highly problematic.

In any case I will immediately remove the sentence below the paragraph because it is a purely speculative statement; especially

when based on biased data.

--129.240.250.8 21:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I attended the 2006 Rebild festival in Denmark, and I noticed the way people treated the lutefisk at the banquet. Americans and younger Danes avoided it completely if they knew what it was, while older Danes treated it the same as they treated the pickled herring and buff. The middle age group was split almost evenly. So attitudes toward lutefisk vary greatly depending on age, region, and how the person is raised. I don't think there's any universal "attitude" towards lutefisk, other than that it's normally eaten with beer and/or liquor. ;) Phædrus 16:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The beer and/or liqour is not a must either, at least no one of my relatives seem to make that connection. We always use julmust. /Cygnus78 (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Categories

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

• Maybe I'll add it back. I rather like lutefisk, and I'm not even Norwegian (maybe that's the reason I don't hate it). The main complaint about it seems to be not so much the taste (fish is fish, ya know) but the rather gelatinous character of it. I don't mind that. My only complaint about it would be that it seems rather salty. However, I also like sushi and raw oysters, so lutefisk rather tame. :) Wahkeenah 12:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Lye!

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)

Jokes

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)

"Vad är lutfisk?" "Det är en fisk det har gått lite snett för." =P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.39.14.81 (talk) 08:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• I clicked on that 'Dorkfish' link. YouTube removed it for use violations. Anyway, I would like to see more in lutefisk jokes Elwin Blaine Coldiron (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think "lutefisk humor" is a largely American invention. It's a completely unfamiliar concept to me as a Norwegian. No combination of lutefisk with "jokes", "humor", etc returns any hits in Norwegian on google and the Norwegian article on wiki makes no mention of it. "Ole and Lena" jokes are also a unique American invention with no counterpart in Scandinavia 84.208.103.235 (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Norwegian angle

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)

linking guideline

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)

linking guideline guideling

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)

some changes

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))." ok, i can do that. 173.15.83.69 (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)flex [all day]

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 edit this page 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)

Origin

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)

Popular culture

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)

Olaus Magnus Norwegian literature

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)

Eating and innovation

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lutefisk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Origin of lutefisk

Hi, the oldest recipe for lutefisk is actually given in a German cookbook of 1553 (http://en.wiki.x.io/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)

Wiki Education assignment: Scandinavian American Folklore

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jrhoban (article contribs).

Origins

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)

Why is there not an actual picture of the living fish????

Wtf? 2600:1700:80E0:32F0:484E:25BC:66E3:60BB (talk) 03:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)