Talk:Balsamic vinegar

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 23 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aleenacarton.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

Content from another version of this article, currently available (with history) at Talk:Balsamic vinegar/Temp, was used in the preparation of this article.

Copyvio

I have replaced this page with a copyright violation notice. It is difficult for me to judge the origin of this page, but it was originally posted in July 2004 by User:Alien life form, who was only active for a few days in that month. The "history" section is verbatim the same as content on at least four other websites:

• http://www.epicureanfoods.com/us/libvinegar.php
• http://www.healthy-snacks.com/Services/Library/Vinegars.html
• http://www.godoc.it/history.htm
• http://www.ditalia.com/shop/VINEGAR/vinegarhistory.html

I verified that the first one has been up since 2002 (via archive.org), so these predate the Wikipedia entry. It looks suspiciously like this is a commercial description, perhaps from some balsamic vinegar trade association, which is used by various vendors of balsamic vinegar. In any event it looks like it was swiped illegally, so the whole article as contributed by this user should probably be rewritten from scratch. NTK 07:52, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

O, brave new copyright world

Greetings.

I luv being accused of illegal behavior, so I will point you to the following everyhting2 writeup

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1097267

(which, as you will note, was authored by me in July 2001). In said article, the history section was adapted from www.balsamicvinegar.com, whose content I and my colleagues created on behalf of a customer a year before (roughly). No copyright was contemplated - quite obviously - on such a trivial account of the recorded history of the stuff. The domain then changed hands, its content was rewritten, etc. so I actually thought that the stuff I wrote was mine to use but, hey, we do mistakes. If traceable at all, that must be the original source of the material that I shamelessly "swiped".

That writeup and some other material I had from then - a part from my personal experience - have been the basis for the article of the wikipedia. To which I return to find out it was really a swipe. Oh, well - I have written compositions in high school for which I care more deeply than that article, and it looks that wikipedia will be balsamic-vinegar-less after all (I'm not going to invest any time in rewriting the thing, next please).

I do find utterly ridiculous, though, the way in which copyright perception and policing (way way before legislation) are getting in the way of sharing rather flat and flavorless factual accounts.

But that ridiculous is only a pale reflection of that which emanates from accounts of such trivia that are peppered with words like "illegal, suspicious, swipe, was active just a few days".

One would think we're killing the Romanoffs, here, rather than engaging in highly onanistic and irrelevant intellectual self play. Of which I had enough.

Alien Life Form 03:19, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

P.S. All of othe above strictly ©. Careful what you quote - especially "onanistic".

Hello. Since you seem to be coming in to Wikipedia from everything2—which has mostly had a lax policy on this sort of thing, perhaps you're not familiar with how things are done here. If you are posting content that appears elsewhere or that was not created especially for wikipedia, you should cite it in the article or at least post a note about it in the talk page, stating that you are the copyright-holder or showing evidence that it is public-domain or otherwise GFDL-compatible. (Note that your sarcastic copyright notice is not applicable, since by submitting new content to Wikipedia you are agreeing to GFDL-license your content.) I followed standard Wikipedia procedure in researching the copyright status of your article. In any case it seems like I was right after all, in that intentionally or not this article belongs to the client whom you created this article. There's no need to be so touchy, all you needed to do was post an explanation here. I would like to welcome your future contributions to Wikipedia but suggest that you be more carefully about sourcing and citing your contributions and otherwise following accepted practices, since unlike everything2, articles in Wikipedia are not individual pieces, but collaboratively edited parts of a larger work. NTK 07:25, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

External Link - Advertisement?

One of the external links was:

• A good place to find artisan balsamic vinegars of all prices.

This links directly to an online shopping site. It's not very informative, except to demonstrate that balsamic vinegar is indeed quite expensive. Looks like it's to draw traffic to this particular product selection. I can't say I have a good replacement link, but I removed this one pending any disagreement, if any. Clarkcol 03:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The text that accompanied the link was terrible, but the link itself is helpful in showing a variety of products and their high prices. I support retaining it for that purpose. Badagnani 03:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That purpose does not justify including a link to a selling site. Leave it out. Dicklyon 05:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you believe, please don't present it as a command. What you meant to say, I think, was "I think we should leave it out." Your opinion is no more or less valuable than any others of ours. Badagnani 05:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You may interpret my imperative voice as my opinion, yes, which is all it is. My opinion is "leave it out". But save your lecture. (that's my opinion, too; you don't have to obey) Dicklyon 05:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Factually incorrect?

I believe the sources cited in this article are incorrect. They currently suggest that the red, silver and gold label certification processes are related to age. The process used to create the vinegars doesn't lend itself to giving a specific age, as the barrells of vinegars are never fully emptied, but blended with each other as the aging process takes place. The colors indicate quality, with red being acceptable, silver being better and gold being the best possible quality. I cannot find a source for this online, however it is listed in a book that comes with the graded vinegars from the consortium in Reggio Emilia. Steeltoe 18:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Balsamic - Balsam

There is no reference made to the origin of the term 'Balsamic'. Can anyone enlighten as to which 'Balsam' the term relates?? 82.40.174.31 01:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)dr_banishcola

The vinegar was apparently first written about in the 11th century, when the Crusades began; there are some Middle Eastern gums that were prized as medicines in the Middle Ages, such as Balsam of Mecca or Balm of Gilead, so the Medieval writers probably compared the vinegar to these medicinal substances. It would be nice to get the original Latin text of the monk Donizone who first wrote about it. See if you could hunt that up. Badagnani 01:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I was also wondering why it was called Balsamic vingar (I though it had something to do with Balsa wood). The article should mention it. If unverifiable, just add it and tag it, near accurate information by an expert with a warning of it is better than none.

{{Unanswered}}

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Squidonius (talk • contribs) 12:17, 24 July 2009

I have now added information about the word origin, with an appropriate reference.  Chzz  ►  19:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done

Chuck Williams

I've heard claims that Chuck Williams, founder of Williams-Sonoma, had brought Balsamic Vinegar to the United States. Does anyone have any facts or contradictions to this claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennislv (talk • contribs) 05:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Blanking

Why was much text just blanked from the article, without prior discussion in this edit, such as "It is also used as a topping on vanilla ice cream or pancakes"? Badagnani (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops - it appears that we are walking over each other with our edits. I was just doing some grammar and layout cleanup; I don't *think* I deleted any text, at least not on purpose! Mylorin (talk) 02:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The edits were so huge it was difficult to tell what was removed. For example, one type of wood was removed, all the wikilinks, uses on ice cream, etc. Doing small edits can help allow other editors to see what is being changed, and allow such inadvertent deletions to be noticed. The deletions occurred in the edits by User:Maramaltija, who had originally removed a large area of text, which I then re-added. You seem knowledgeble about this subject and it's great to have more thorough and detailed information about the traditional styles, which aren't well known. Badagnani (talk) 03:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is ice cream still missing from the article? Would you please go back and see what it was that you deleted? It would be so greatly appreciated. Badagnani (talk) 01:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

« Numerosissime sono le notizie storiche che riguardano l'Aceto Balsamico Tradizionale di Modena. Il termine - balsamico - accanto alla parola aceto appare per la prima volta nel 1700, come riportato nel registro delle vendemmie e vendite dei vini per conto delle Cantine segrete ducali per l'anno 1747 (archivio di Stato, Modena). Pur tuttavia, questa tradizione a produrre aceto balsamico "particolarissimo" in un'area abbastanza ristretta come appunto la provincia di Modena, è tanto antica da trovare precisa memoria già nel 1508 alla corte del duca di Modena, Alfonso I d'Este, marito di Lucrezia Borgia. 

Ancora, documenti e manoscritti del XVI secolo e dell'anno 1796, riferiscono dei mosti ben maturi utilizzati per la produzione dell'aceto balsamico alla modenese e dei rincalzi dei 36 barili custoditi nel terzo torrione del palazzo ducale verso S. Domenico. È interessante notare come da queste prime memorie appaiono di continuo due costanti fondamentali per la produzione dell'Aceto Balsamico Tradizionale di Modena: il mosto cotto ottenuto dalle uve tipiche coltivate in provincia di Modena quale prodotto di base e la dislocazione dei locali di produzione in ambienti alti, generalmente in sottotetto. La prima codifica della produzione dell'Aceto Balsamico Tradizionale di Modena ci perviene da una lettera autografa inviata nel 1860 da Francesco Aggazzotti a Pio Fabriani. A partire da tale data, le testimonianze relative a questa produzione infittiscono e diventano più ufficiali grazie alla diffusione commerciale: esposizione agraria 1863 in Modena, esposizione emiliana in Bologna del 1888, depliant a stampa dell'epoca in cui si afferma che l'aceto balsamico è una specialità modenese, prodotto da uve scelte.

Per concludere, queste testimonianze confermano che in provincia di Modena, da epoca immemorabile, viene prodotto un particolare tipo di aceto, sconosciuto in altre zone, con caratteristiche produttive e d'invecchiamento giunte pressoché inalterate fino ai nostri giorni le quali sono state recepite e oggettivate nel disciplinare di produzione dell'Aceto Balsamico Tradizionale di Modena »

(Tratto dal Disciplinare di produzione) 

- This text icame from the dop of the production of traditional balsamic vinegar. If someone can take it in english is a useful thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.201.205.253 (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Dubious qualities

"Tradizionale vinegar has excellent digestive properties and it may even be drunk from a tiny glass to conclude a meal." Hmmm... I don't really know what "facts" this might be based on, but unless a good citation appears I think I'll delete the sentence.Jimjamjak (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

spam links

There are two links currently on the article:

• Homepage of the "Modena Consorzio"
• Homepage of the "Reggio Emilia Consorzio"

These are both clearly promotional in nature and, per WP:ELNO, don't provide any information "beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." I've stated this, Ronz (talk · contribs) has stated this, and Badagnani (talk · contribs) has repeatedly reverted with no explanation other than indicating they are "quite valid", despite being asked to take it here (the talk page).

So, what's the deal? tedder (talk) 01:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

First, edit warring is unproductive; do not engage in it. Second, this is an artisanal product with a protected designation, and, as such, links to the organizations sponsoring and maintaining the designation are central to providing a proper, encyclopedic understanding of this product to our users--much as the Pepsi article contains a great many links to PepsiCo related websites. Whichever websites provide the absolute best information, reasonableness dictates that we provide such to our users. Your interest in this subject is greatly appreciated, however! Badagnani (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to threaten edit warring, please take it to my talk page or the 3RR board. If you want to discuss issues of ownership ("your interest in this subject"), those aren't acceptable either.

As far as the links are concerned, can you provide reliable sources these are the organizations responsible for maintaining the designation, those should be given in the text with reliable sources, not as external links with no context behind them. The organizations will then be discussed in the article body. It sounds like you have some depth in this field- can you help find some resources to do so? tedder (talk) 01:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest just ignoring Badagnani such comments. This exact same behavior is well documented in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Badagnani. --Ronz (talk) 01:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Aha. I wasn't aware of the RFC, and that puts things in context. Sounds like the consensus is clear- unless reliable sources are found to establish the notability of the orgs, they are spam. tedder (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ronz: You have removed (or "refactored") our discussion below, so I will repeat it here for context: Please do not advise editors to "just ignore" other editors, because it is incredibly rude. (Thank you for amending your statement above, but it would have been better to provide the diff to the discussion you deleted, or some sort of context for your amendment).

Also, repeatedly linking to the RfC/U every time you disagree with Badagnani could be considered an attack. I would advise, and request, that you desist from doing so so frequently. Just because Badagnani was not explaining himself very well above, does not mean he is wrong. Please respect the relevant policies and guidelines, in letter and spirit. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Your harassment is not welcome here, or anywhere else on Wikipedia. Please demonstrate you can follow your own advise before giving it.

For further discussions on Badagnani's problematic behavior, take it up on his RfC/U. --Ronz (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Would it make sense to ask Giano? He's usually pretty helpful on this kind of thing and I think he speaks Italian. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the links are the official home page of the consortiums of the traditional balsamic vinegars. Exactly:

• Homepage of the "Modena Consorzio" This is the official consortium of producers*
• Homepage of the "Consorzio Tutela ABTM" This is the consortium for the protection of the traditional balsamic vinegar of modena.

same thing for the link to the "Reggio Emilia consorzio", these are consortiums recognized by laws.Sismassyk (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. This article is not about the consortiums of balsamic vinegars. --Ronz (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Restore links to these official sites per the example of the numerous aforementioned links to the PepsiCo website in the Pepsi article--as we must be reasonable in everything we do and keep our users foremost in our minds, it is eminently reasonable to include links to these official sites. Restoring. Badagnani (talk) 05:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no. We do not link to such sites per the many, many disputes you have had on this exact same issue. Please respect consensus and the relevant policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be ideal to link to useful pages, that provide specific reference for specific sentences; linking to root "homepages" is less useful. And, to preemptively answer Ronz's usual reply: Reliable self-published sources are allowed as references: See Odwalla for a topically-relevant and recently featured example. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You people don't seem to understant - the consortia that are in charge of the appelation are like the AOC organizations for wine. It would be ridiculous to have an article on, say, Bordeaux wine or Beaujolais without linking to the AOC organizations. It is similarly ridiculous to have an article on Balsamic Vinegar (which is, afterall, a DOC) without having a link to the DOC consortia. That said, I'll just add that I do agree that the content of the article focuses too much on the issue of tradizionale versus "imitation" balsamic, and does have the flavour of an advertisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.12.192 (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

1. European Commission Reference.

2. Badagnani, I'd suggest you add the 2 company links as footnotes, in the Balsamic vinegar#Aceto Balsamico Tradizionale section (instead of as contextless ELs). Or, better still, add links instead to the most specifically-useful-subpage of those sites, eg balsamico.it storia and Aceto balsamico tradizionale - consorzio di Reggio Emilia (or anything better than the plain homepages). -- Quiddity (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Recommended Reference an/or Link

Here is an article on the subject that might be of use. Since I am the author I will not add it as a link, but it is probably the most complete discussion of balsamic on the net.

http://amazingribs.com/recipes/my_ingredients/zen_of_balsamic_vinegar.html

Quedude (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems like spam and is not a reliable source to me. tedder (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Main article image

I've changed the main image for the article - the one shown at the top-right of the page - from the original picture (three desserts using traditional balsamic vinegar) to a bottle of 'Balsamic Vinegar of Modena'. My main reason for doing this was that the picture of the desserts (which I've now moved to the 'Uses' section) didn't actually depict balsamic vinegar itself (or at least not very obviously), whereas the picture of the bottle gives the reader an idea of the colour and appearance of it. I'm aware, however, that the new picture shows 'Balsamic Vinegar of Modena' (mentioned in the caption), which the article describes as a 'cheap imitation of the original product'. Despite this I think that, until we can get a clear picture of some traditional balsamic vinegar, this is the best image to use to illustrate the article. I'm no expert on balsamic vinegar though, so if you disagree, do change it back. TheLewisRepublic (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

From Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary...

Etymology: Latin balsamum, from Greek balsamon,...

References [3] doesn't work. The above is from the same dictionary though.

In (modern) Greek the word balsmaico means "restorative" or "curative" (healing). It's an ancient word and one that was used, including the making of such elixers as what the Italians call "vinegar", long before it was recorded by crusaders of the east who found this to actually work as a "curative". Lest we forget who inhabitted the east long before any barbars or moors or other invaders took over, it was, yes, the Greeks.

I won't write any of this on the main page myself. I'll probably be accused of not using the proper reference or of original research or other stuff famous for on wikipedia. So I'll leave it here for those that know what to look for and where to read.

Scott Anafas (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Balsamic strawberry ice cream

"Balsamic" redirects here. There has been a commercial airing recently that mentions "balsamic strawberry ice cream," but I'm not sure if it's real (since it wasn't the product advertised) or if they are making fun of yuppie food.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Health claims require medical sources

WP:MEDRS defines the type of sources required for health-related information. None of these even come close. Worse, these look like WP:FRINGE claims. --Ronz (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Ingredients of Balsamic Vinegar of Modena

What I read in the main article is "These commercial-grade products [...] are made of wine vinegar with the addition of colouring, caramel and sometimes thickeners like guar gum or cornflour to artificially simulate the sweetness and thickness of the aged Aceto Balsamico Tradizionale di Modena. [...]

I just happened to be looking at the ingredients lists of various "Balsamic Vinegar of Modena IGP" products on the shelf of a normal biggish supermarket (in the UK) and they *all* (down to the cheapest) included "cooked grape must" as an ingredient. I don't see this in the list given on this page: grapes are only mentioned as an ingredient on the much more expensive "tradizionale" variant, the "commercial-grade" ingredients list is fruit-free.

Only just created my account, hesitating over just editing the main page, but the list looks wrong based on what I observed. And not sure whether looking at ingredients lists on shelves of a supermarket may count as Original Research, still not quite sure of the rules there - I suppose I may have misremembered some details, would a photo of the label of the one I bought help? - but it feels like fact to me. Alan-24 (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Interesting observations.

Ingredients lists from products would be considered primary sources. The bottle on in my cupboard lists "cooked grape must" as well. You're correct that we shouldn't make conclusions by looking at ingredients labels. However the section has no sources. Looking over the sources in the article, the Bertolli reference verifies much if not all of what's there. It should be added as a source for the section. Further sources would be helpful, and the section modified so all the information is verifiable from the sources. --Ronz (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The whole article seems to be pushing an agenda, namely that the product everybody outside Italy considers to be balsamic vinegar is cheap chemical rubbish, and everybody should pay vast sums for the obscure artisanal stuff instead. --Ef80 (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

All the sources that I've looked at support the pov that the imitation balsamic vinegar is a pale imitation indeed. Of course, we really need more and better sources. --Ronz (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Since this remains un-dealt-with after 3-1/2 years…

As currently written, this article implies that there's no grape must at all. And the ingredients lists above (even if they were easier to cite) only really prove that _sometimes_ there's _some unspecified amount_ of grape must. But I'm pretty sure there is a mandated minimum.

The separate article on Balsamic vinegar of Modena says:

The PGI production regulations leaves plenty of leeway, allowing the use of grape must (even if it is not from the provinces of Modena and Reggio Emilia) in percentages between 20 and 90% and wine vinegar between 10 and 80%.

I _believe_ this is the official IGP document for the standard, which agrees with both of the above. But since I can't find it in English, and don't read Italian, I'm not 100%, so I'd appreciate if someone could verify that source after I edit. --157.131.171.92 (talk) 06:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Compare please

Could we have more of a comparison between normal vinegar and balsamic, like what balsamic is good for over normal and vice versa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.3.164 (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

This is an old section. But, I was wondering the same. I think there should be a quick explanation of the differences, as that's what many my come here for. I could add it - but, I just like cooking and would rather someone with some more detailed knowledge do so. Objective3000 (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Balsamic Vinegar of Modena

I reverted this section to a version from April. The section was rewritten by an WP:SPA in a advertising style and marked POV today. The section could be expanded somewhat. But, there is a fork with more explanation. Objective3000 (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It would be helpful to identify the version you reverted it to, and the SPA. --Ronz (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

April 22. The apparent SPA was AndrewForJustice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Objective3000 (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Comparing the two versions [1], it's unclear what you did. --Ronz (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I didn’t revert the entire article to April – only the section on balsamic vinegar Modena. Balsamic vinegars traditionally require a long (12 or more years), expensive process still in use today. The newer Balsamic Vinegar of Modena uses a much simpler, quicker (as few as 30 days), less expensive process with more leeway. It appeared that the SPA added some puffery to the less expensive version adding more text than that for the traditional vinegars. An editor marked the section POV. Looked to me that the POV tag was on target, so I changed that section to the pre-SPA version. Each of the main articles explains this more clearly. This could be explained more clearly. But, someone with more experience in the field than I should do this. Objective3000 (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Lead in Balsamic Vinegar

I have seen a few sources referring to the presence of lead in Balsamic Vinegar in small quantities (some claiming that it might be from the soil, others from the barrel or processing). I've linked the original paper and a subsequent replication of it as well as the two news articles I judged most reputable in reporting this.

* https://web.archive.org/web/20170729081938/http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/lead-in-vinegar
* https://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Lead-in-red-wine-vinegars-could-hurt-kids-3210998.php
* https://www.sfpublicpress.org/lead-in-balsamic-vinegar-raises-more-questions-than-answers/
* https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21550100/

All of this is at least 10 years old, so I'm still interested in learning if there is a more definitive result, I may reach out to the University_of_California,_Santa_Cruz toxicology lab that was performing tests as mentioned in the SF_Public_Press article and see if the university has completed and published the referenced research.

Have there been any references to these lead reports in the past? It seems like it might be useful to summarize the state of scientific understanding with respect to lead content in balsamic vinegars along with the appropriate citations. Thoughts? VeraqueVeritas (talk) 02:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

fake counterfeit products

An interesting BBC article : Why your balsamic vinegar is likely fake - https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20231024-why-your-balsamic-vinegar-is-likely-fake Wisdood (talk) 10:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)