Talk:Garum

message: Does anybody know how the one-handled pitcher in the picture is really called? It's not 'amphora', the previous version not withstanding. An amphora has, by definition, two handles. ospalh (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Not Amphora

message: This article is about Ancient Roman Fish sauce, not fish sauce in general. Deleted this reference:
", a cousin of Vietnamese nuoc mam "
Intranetusa 21:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted references to the Asian fish sauce

message: http://www.italiancookingandliving.com/food/pf_text/ac_garum.html claims:
:Existing in various forms and qualities, garum could be enjoyed by slave and emperor alike, and gradually grew prevalent enough to invoke the only large-scale factory industry in the ancient world.
which contradicts our article:
:"was usually only consumed by the higher classes of society."
bogdan 23:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Curtis article I've cited makes it clear that garum of differing quality was consumed at every level of socity.--Wetman (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: luxury or staple?

message: I didn't tag this as I'm not one of those taggers, but such a use does need some explication.--Wetman (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: In cosmetics?

message: Was Aulus Umbricius Scaurus a producer or an importer of garum?
The importer of the picture on Commons uses the German word "Produzent". The caption on en-wikipedia uses the word "importer". (The French version is careful and speaks about a "merchant".)
It seems to be known—please see the (unsourced) sentence about archaeologists and bogues—that garum was also produced in Pompeii.
--JmCor (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Producer or importer? 

message: Would it also be called oenogarum in Latin?68.148.149.184 (talk) 09:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Edits 

message: I recently attempted two extremely minor changes to this article, to remove first some misleading grammar, and second, some entirely unrelated information.  Both changes were marked, apparently, as "vandalism" by one of the wiki-regulars.  I do not care to figure this system out.  I have wasted 10 minutes in a vain effort to re-apply my changes under a registered user-named, without luck.  I just plead with the regulars of this site, STOP REVERTING ALL ANONYMOUS CHANGES.  I contribute, or attempt to, regularly.  And near every time my changes are reverted.  I never change content, only correct and amend errors and misleading statements.  A quick check of my amendments would prove this.  Anyways, I'm sure the same 'regulars' will purge this as fast any other attempt I make to contribute.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by StopTheBloat (talk • contribs) 02:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Were you operating from IP:24.174.87.106? If so, then I reverted your edits. I looked at the last one you made, where you had removed both content and a citation. You say the content was "entirely unrelated". I wouldn't agree. If you are going to delete material, you should always give a reason in the edit summary, and if the deletion is any way likely to be controversial, you should discuss it first with other editors on the talk page. More seriously, you removed a citation. Wikipedia revolves around reliable sources, and it is never an "extremely minor change" to remove one. That citation also covered earlier material which you left standing. It was the removal of the citation that prompted me to rollback your edits as vandalism. That is why your earlier edit on a minor grammatical point was also reverted. I have reinstated your grammatical improvement, and put a welcome on your talk page. Please read the guidelines there and note in particular, the importance of assuming good faith in other editors. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Reminding others to assume good faith while not doing so yourself? You must be a mod on here...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.48.8 (talk) 07:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: New edit

message: The text in the wiki says:  "one to three months, where the mixture fermented and liquified in the dry warmth, the salt inhibiting the common agents of decay."   Watching Secrets of the Dead, where they were working on Roman ship wrecks, they prepared Garum, and the time they cited was days not months.  So I wonder if it should be said the time to prepare varied???  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.31.181.147 (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the Romans were also using red plastic buckets.--Wetman (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion on preparation

message: There is no mention of the lost of the reciepe and taste for it.. the fall of Rome, by example? when, roughly?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.179.15.169 (talk) 06:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  When did it disapears into history? 

message: io9 has an essentially unsourced article discussing that garum had a high MSG content that accounted for most of its popularity. Obviously, it's an unencyclopedic article and unreliable source, but do they have a point? and is there a better account of it? — LlywelynII 08:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: io9 & MSG

message: I am from southern Iran where we use a type of sauce on bread called "Mahyave", which is a fairly common cuisine. I was reading this source: http://www.parthia.com/parthia_cuisine.htm#Garum and the recipe it gave for Liquamen was approximately the same: We mash sardines, then mix it with Fennel, dried lemon, Nigella Sativa seeds and Turmeric Rhizomes and this paste is then mixed with salt and left to dry under the sun.
I am in no place to discuss the Parthian origin of this food. However, I hope me linking the Farsi page to the article Garum is not a case of original research. I live the rest to you guys. حضرت محمود (talk) 09:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persian variety still consumed 

message: I was curious what fish γάρος, "the fish whose intestines were originally used in the condiment's production" was, but I could see no evidence that there ever was such a fish, or that the word indeed derives from such a fish. All I saw in favor were similarly vague and dubious mentions, such as cooking pages, or at best, this museum page. I know we don't consider internal links as reliable, but the most credible seems to me wikt:el:γάρος, so I will change the sentence accordingly and give that as a reference, in hopes that anyone who knows more about the topic can improve that page. — Sebastian 18:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology - or: What fish was γάρος? 

message: Garum was a fermented fish sauce used as a condiment in the cuisines of ancient Greece, Rome, and Byzantium. 
Liquamen was a similar preparation, and at times the two were synonymous.
Although it enjoyed its greatest popularity in the Roman world, the sauce was earlier used by the Greeks. 
The Latin word garum derives from the Greek garos or garon (γάρον), of uncertain origin. 
The author doesn't show any source. Why?
--Karanko (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So why don't you do some work yourself and find the sources? --Epipelagic (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Regarding 's comment,  since when is it the reviewer's responsibility to cite sources? The originator of the information is responsible. Cite sources, or remove text. Alrich44 (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, you should not be removing long standing text unless it is in a BLP or you have good reason to believe it shouldn't be there. In earlier years there was less rigour about verification, but most long standing legacy text still belongs in articles even if it is not yet cited, and shouldn't be causally removed without a careful search for sources. Nor is it appropriate to dignify unsolicited and obvious types of criticism by calling them "reviews". What is a real help is taking responsibility and doing the needed work yourself. It's all too easy and of very little help merely criticizing articles and demanding others improve them.  Karanko is unlikely to be addressing "the originator of the information" who may have left Wikipedia many years ago. The passage for which sources are demanded also happen to be from the lead. It is not required to cite the lead if it is a summary of material already cited in the main body. --Epipelagic (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi Epipelagic, thanks for the explanation. I was including my good reason for removing them...no sources or conflicting sources without a clear understanding of the conflict. Alrich44 (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

text: If I get the time this weekend to find some  more reliable references, would anybody be willing to help me improve this article by correcting much  of the confusion present. I think the current references used, are themselves including the confusion with garon which is the 'collective' Greek noun for all fermented fish condiments. Such transcription error are easy to make with such similar spelling. Garum however, is the Latin for a fish paste condiment from blood and guts only; Allec is for fish paste with bones, and Liquamen is for the liquid fish sauce which is separated from the pastes. This must be made clearer. Also, bacterial fermentation is exactly  the  thing you don't need in this process. They would consume all the amino acids,  leaving a nitrogen rich brine only useful for fertilizing marine  kelp bed farms. Garon depends on natural enzymatic digestion from those already present in the cells of the fish.--Aspro (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I may be available to help translate source material into text, or edit for my own clarity that may help others. I wish I could get more clarity into MSG too. I think most of the issues people have with it is from the extra things that some processors wind up including in their products. Haven't found a good source for it though. Alrich44 (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that would be a great help. What is going through my mind is that  we should have separate article for true Garum,  Allec, Muria and Liquimen. The history section of each, can mention that the definition of the nouns are sometimes confused.  Another section can provide references to current day equivalents – of which there are many.  This will (I trust), provide a clear sort of audit trail that everybody can follow... From the Wikipedia reading  Marine Biologist, to those involved in  the fishing industry, to high class chiefs, to the housewife who just wants to get a bit of background to the ingredients she is using and finally to the academic food historians and archaeologists that do original research. Over fifty years ago, my father produced his own home made form of allec to feed to our chickens. The high protean and  calcium content help them to lay better eggs. Oh boy did it stink at first! There must be references to this practice we can link to also. In this modern day and age, what happened before our food gets served up before us is a mystery to most people. One of the aims of an encyclopaedia is to demystify. I think this is the best way forward on this article.--Aspro (talk) 11:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Consider Allec isn't in most online dictionaries. I found it here: http://www.cooksinfo.com/allec. "...the paste, or sediment, that was left at the bottom of the container or barrel that other fish sauces such as garum, liquamen or muria were made in." Wiktionary only has it as herring. Alrich44 (talk) 09:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is where two heads are better than one, on an Audit Trail. We need to compare references. As far as I know, Allec was made from anchovies that had been topped and tailed. They have very soft bones and so Allec can be eaten -even to day- as a spread  on a modern day  pizzas.  Think you have got the gist of this - so carry on Googling. As I said before, I am a little busy right at this very moment but I happened upon an article by Grainger, who whilst doesn’t say the exact thing that I am suggesting, never-the-less,  exposes and explains the confusion in the naming of things --Aspro (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are the sources? 

message: "and salt could be substituted for a simpler dish. " it reads like a non sequitur. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: What does this mean

message: How could garum have helped spread fish tapeworms across Europe? Surely the fermentation process would have destroyed the tapeworm?Royalcourtier (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tapeworm 

message: An IP editor has repeatedly removed a reliably cited mention that garum provides an umami flavor, despite being reverted by different editors. The justification offered in edit comments has been the opinion of the editor that "unami" "is simply a Japanese culinary term, meaning savory." However, the source states correctly that garum is an umami flavoring, and makes use of the common English usage of the term umami, borrowed from the Japanese (as can readily be confirmed from many other sources). The Japanese etymology is a distraction here (the etymological fallacy), as it is the English usage that is relevant to the article. The term umami is only approximately equivalent to "savory", a term with wide meanings; it is used in English, whatever it may once have meant in its Japanese etymology, to denote the specific (meaty) flavor associated with a type of receptor on the tongue. The text was correct, and should now be reinstated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  No such proof is required, and the attempt to insist on it is purely tendentious. The opinions stated by the IP editor are essentially personal opinions, expressing a considerable measure of distaste for the term umami (which the editor bizarrely insists on spelling a different way). While everyone is entitled to hold whatever views they like, personal opinion is entirely inappropriate in a Wikipedia article. Umami is a relatively recently discovered flavor and taste receptor, adding to the traditionally known four, namely sweet, sour, salt, bitter. English had no name for the fifth flavor, and rather than inventing one, the language borrowed a term from Japanese, which is now established usage for this specific meaning. That meaning is not identical to the etymological meaning of the original term, and it is as I already mentioned a clear instance of the etymological fallacy to presume it must continue to have such a meaning, or indeed some supposedly "correct" transliteration, when the established English usage is spelt differently, a clear marker if such were needed that the term has been adapted as well as borrowed from the original. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Umami

message: The name garum for the salty fish mixture reminds me of the Malay word garam for salt. Is there a connection? Yospangsada (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if it's more directly connected with Hindi (and other Indian languages), e.g. garam masala = hot spice. Bahasa (Indonesian and Malayan) seems to have quite a few loan words from Indian traders. Did they perhaps bring salt? Peter coxhead (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  GARUM and GARAM 

message: My recent addition to this article was reverted by User:Zefr for the following reason: "conjecture, unsourced". (Link to diff). I am confused by this revert, as it was neither conjecture, nor unsourced. Zefr, can you please explain your revert? Eniagrom (talk) 17:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As the use of garum during Roman times (at least 2000 years ago) and before is based on interpretation of artifacts and no records, your edit on how it disappeared from common use impressed as conjecture derived from conjecture, with the one NPR source deep in conjecture. One sentence on its possible reasons for disappearing would be sufficient. Editing your last sentence for the History section: "Historians consider piracy and salt tax to be possible reasons why garum disappeared from common use.(ref name="NPR") --Zefr (talk) 18:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of Disappearance section 

message: the recipie given here seems somewhat different
https://www.timesofisrael.com/factory-for-romans-favorite-funky-fish-sauce-discovered-near-ashkelon/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.245.17.105 (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: recipe

message: I read the linked text at footnote 8; it doesn't seem at all that garum and ketchup have a shared origin, except in the sense that they both use fish. --2607:FEA8:D5DF:F3D9:1CFD:643F:358D:3A22 (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  shared origin with ketchup? 

message: I do not understand your reversal of my change that made "garos" bold  with a comment "no, it doesn't" [redirect here]. It is easy to check that Garos (fish) indeed redirects here since November 2023. Garos is also a term frequently used by researchers in this field, see, for example . Therefore it seems that MOS:BOLDREDIRECT applies. Викидим (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You boldfaced garos with the edit summary "redirects here". But Garos doesn't redirect to this article; it's an article about a French commune. Garos (fish) may redirect to this article, but that doesn't seem to me to merit boldfacing the term. Perhaps if it redirected specifically to the "Manufacture and export" section, there would be a better justification for boldfacing it here. Deor (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Викидим (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Garos (fish)]] redirecting here