Talk:Balsamic vinegar

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)

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. 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)

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)

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).

3. Ronz, please do not tell editors to "ignore" other editors. It's really fucking rude. (I do not swear lightly or often). It's also the very definition of "bad faith". Just because you cannot successfully communicate with Badagnani does not mean that nobody can, and it does not mean that you are always right and he is always wrong. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)