Jump to content

Talk:Ketchup/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Sugar

There is no mention of the very high sugar content of ketchup, nor of how much of an impact this has in the condiment's overall "flavor profile".Dogface 11:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Bottling

There really should be a section on bottling, such as when the modern glass and squeeze bottles were introduced and by whom and the like. I'd really like to know who to glare at for keeping glass bottles around :P. Really, glass ketchup bottles are a nuisance. We should boycott them. --Zeromaru 19:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is another technique for getting ketchup and similar (or merely thick enough) liquids out of bottles: contents must get near the opening before bottle is opened. This may involve keeping the bottle upsidedown (especially as some bottles are designed for that) or even hitting its cap while holding upsidedown. saimhe 12:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No, plastic bottles are an abomination. We should shoot their inventor into the sun. Glass bottles forever!!!Dogface 19:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Mushrooms!

It's natural that the article should concentrate on tomato ketchup, given it's prominence, but I feel there should be more mention/discussion of mushroom ketchup, as it is a prominent condiment, and to a prominent ketchup. 23:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. I believe that for non-English speakers the word "ketchup" may exclusively associate with tomatoes -- for example, I always wondered why ketchup is mentioned in Gathering Mushrooms by Clannad. saimhe 12:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevance

"Heinz have also stated that their iconic labels, attached to all their products "are printed by a label printer, the labels are printed in large batches at any one time"."

Unlike every other product in the world, whose labels are hand-drawn? What the hey is this piece of dubious (and incomprehensible) trivia doing in the Ketchup article? I'm deleting it, restore it if you can explain its relevance to ketchup or in fact anything at all. Unigolyn 00:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Red sauce/red gravy?

Changed the intro which claims these terms are used "interchangeably" with tomato sauce in various countries. Certainly not the case in Australia where tomato sauce is the primary name, nor in New Zealand to my knowledge. If this is not accurate and all three terms are used in some countries, Australia at least should be deleted from this list. Fauxvegan 08:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In New Zealand, at least, "red sauce" is unheard of, "ketchup" is the American, sweeter (yes? or some sort of difference) kind, the sort you get in those little sachets in McDonalds. And not many other places. "Tomato sauce" is by far the most common term and item, and it's certainly not interchangeable with ketchup, or any of the others - they're definitely recognised as two different (but related, in that they're both made from tomatoes and have similar purposes) products. "Catsup" I'd never even heard until I saw it on The Simpsons, or "red sauce" until I saw it on some British sitcom where I'm sure it was some sort of affectation I didn't get. That section could definitely be clearer. Actually, this whole article is pretty poorly put together, with vague generalisations and Americocentricity. It could do with a tidy-up or a rewrite. 210.54.98.215 08:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

NO MENTION OF BANANA KETCHUP

I have to say that this is the most incomplete factoid about ketchups I know. What about the Banana Ketchup? where did it originate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.9.74.10 (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Ketchup and US Politics

While it is true that Bush supportes started covering up Heinz labels and produced 'alternative' ketchups during the election, I also heard that T. Heinz was no longer involved in the Heinz corporation. Is that true? If so, it should follow the 'as not to add to his opponent's campaign coffers.[9]' comment. 207.69.137.24 14:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ketchup originally a drink?

I can't recall where I heard this but I've believed it for so long. Was ketchup originally sold as a drink? I tried googling the info but can't find anything. Does anyone know if this is true? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.107.15.166 (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Distribution

I believe it might be a good idea to include where ketchup is sold and of what brands. I know that coloured ketchup wasn't sold in Canada at first (but don't know about now) because distributors didn't think Canadian consumers would buy it Canking 00:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

world's largest ketchup packet

This article might be interesting to editors. Dr. Cash 03:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to have used such an non-descriptive edit summary when I first removed the link. The detailed reason I removed it was because it was added by an IP address whose only edits are to add links to that domain to this and other articles. I recalled previously seeing other IPs do the same with that domain (though I've been looking for the diffs to write this up and can't find them) which pretty much makes our definition of spamming. I try not to use the word spam in my edit summaries if an editor hasn't been warned about it as many don't realize such activity is defined that way and it leads to bad feeling, plus there's always a possibility I'm wrong. Anyway, that was the reason for the original removal. It wasn't meant to stop regular editors deciding on what is good encyclopedic content, just stop a random IP from promoting a site throughout our articles.

The link does fall foul of the external links guideline's requirement for a link to be a unique resource since there is already a recipe link on the page. Some editors consider recipe links to be outright unencyclopedic. That's not my stance, I think a particularly classic or well known recipe can be appropriate but that recipe sections for links to editors' favorite recipes can be problematic. But I don't regularly edit this article and it looks like it's in pretty good shape, so this is just fodder for the rest of you to consider. -- SiobhanHansa 21:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think two recipes are excessive. The two are very different, and together give a better idea of the wide variety of ketchups. I wouldn't object to as many as four recipes, if they were different enough from each other; beyond that it would start to look like a link farm. I'm going to leave it alone for a day or so, but after that if nobody raises a substantive objection I'm going to restore the link. Zsero 22:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Something to consider if you want more recipes: Our sister project, Wikibooks, has an entry in the cookbook's tomato based sauces section -- SiobhanHansa 00:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Early origins

This section seems to contradict itself over whether ketchup was originally made from tomatoes: 'first half of the word means "tomato" ' HairyDan 12:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Tomato is so fundamental to ketchup that I am not so sure about anything not made from tomato as being its early origin. I may be wrong, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountolive (talk • contribs) 23:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. Tomatoes may be fundamental to ketchup today, but it wasn't so until the 20th century, and we still have such things as mushroom ketchup and banana ketchup. -- Zsero (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Bitter? How?

The article claims that tomato ketchup includes all five basic tastes. It clearly has ingredients for salt, sweet (sugar), sour (vinegar), and savory (tomato). None of the other ingredients are bitter, and I'm not sure whether it's even possible to have sour (acid) and bitter (alkali) tastes together in a blended product. One of the two should convert to salt upon mixing. Bradd 15:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I found this in the article at gladwell.com, reporting the results of a formal taste test: "For Heinz, the critical flavor components—vinegar, salt, tomato I.D. (over-all tomato-ness), sweet, and bitter—were judged to be present in roughly equal concentrations, and those elements, in turn, were judged to be well blended." That would support the claims of all five flavors, in balance. Still, I'm suspicious, partly because the chemistry of it doesn't make sense, partly because ketchup doesn't taste bitter at all to me personally. (And why would you want it to taste bitter? Bitterness is nigh-universally unpleasant.) Bradd 15:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that why so many people drink coffee?92.0.125.201 (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

Common sense

Well, the Wikipedia is by far something different from what the original intent is and with all this happy "everyone can edit" things are getting out of hand with marketers.

In this particular case, it is one thing to have an illustration of a product (say a bowl of ketchup or some fries adorned with this sauce) and a totally different thing to publish the label of a producer as a "good example".

Fellow wikipedians - guard this article and the others like it if you still wish to have an encyclopedia and not just some other Yellow Pages advert book! 93.126.136.39 (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If the image had been pushed by marketers I would think it would be a rather better photo. Using an image of brand that is iconic for ketchup (which is not the same thing at all as saying it is a good ketchup) is not allowing marketers to get out of hand. There is nothing about Wikipedia that was ever about denying the existence or impact of commercial organizations. It's about making knowledge freely available - which will often include information about commercial organizations where appropriate. I don't think the image of a Heinz ketchup bottle damages this article - for many people it's pretty much the only Ketchup they've ever had. -- SiobhanHansa 20:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Pick a photo from the back of the product where the brand is less visible if you imply that the users are too dumb to apreciate something like a bowl of the product as opposed to the copywrighted bottle. Or at least blur the brand and they will recognise it. 93.126.136.39 (talk) 10:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I was implying the point of the photo was to show an iconic brand - so using the back of the bottle or blurring the the brand would be a bit pointless. -- SiobhanHansa 11:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Think of something along the lines of [[1]] before putting that advert again. 93.126.136.39 (talk) 10:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

A similar type of photo might be another good addition but it doesn't mean we shouldn't have the Heinz photo too (my personal favorite currently on the page is the hotdog one). However since the actual photo you suggest does not have the free licensing required by Wikipedia it's not particularly useful. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's purpose and policies a little more. You seem to be under some false ideas about it. -- SiobhanHansa 11:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ketchup/Catsup

Is it me or is there a difference between ketchup and catsup? I am utterly convinced that there is, as is my friend? can any one enlighten us? philb 15:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's you. "Catsup" is just a different spelling of the same word. It's pronounced "ketchup". Zsero 16:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! :-) philb 09:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


This section should be removed from the article entirely. There is no discussion in it as to the origin of the different spellings, and it is little more than a list of television shows that make mention of it. It is not notable, and has no place in an encyclopedic entry. Perhaps some of the references could be merged elsewhere in the article, but it cannot remain in its current form. Wikipedia Policy on trivia sections (the purvey of which this falls under) are quite clear that they are to be avoided. Since this section adds nothing to the article or the examination of the phenomena to which the section is dedicated other than some references to The Simpsons or the King of the Hill, it does not meet notability guidelines, and I have removed it.--Walkeraj (talk) 04:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is the exact opposite of a trivia section. "Trivia" is not just another word for "pop culture". Rather than a collection of unrelated facts that's bound to keep growing, it's a representative sample of significant examples of a notable aspect of the article's subject. It is an undisputed fact that both spellings exist in the USA, and are equally well-known, and this causes enough confusion to have generated all these pop culture references. The list was edited down about six months ago IIRC; if every mention of the confusion were included it would be much longer. It is in fact "a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme", which the very guideline you refer to excludes from its scope.
As for your complaint that there's no analysis, feel free to add some, but beware of OR. -- Zsero (talk) 05:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. While you're correct that trivia is not always synonymous with pop culture, what enrichment does this bring to the article? Absolutely none. It is, by definition, entirely trivial. Sections like this can (and have become) a problem on Wikipedia. People want to contribute something, but lack the expertise and sources/data to give actual analysis or do research, so they find (or create) a trivia section and fill it with lists of references in cartoons, songs or television shows (check the trivia section history for Zippo, it's abysmal). Yes, both spellings exist in the USA. This is a fact to be noted. The episodes of the Simpsons or the King of the Hill it has appeared in, along with relevant lines delivered by Bart Simpson and Cotton Hill, are not relevant to this phenomena. They are cultural reflections on it and perhaps there is a place for them, but it is not in the Main Body of the article. Put another way, do you think it would be tolerated if you were to edit Wikipedia:Trivia sections and add a reference to this XKCD comic? "Original Research" is a similar problem with a more insidious result, as you are no doubt keenly aware. Since I am not in possession of expertise or sources in etymology, I will not (and should not) perform this kind of research. On the whole, it is far more appropriate to note the differences in spelling, use an {{expandsection}} tag, and move the specifics to the discussion page or elsewhere. --Walkeraj (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
On a related note, I often think that Wikipedia would do well to add a separate "meta-cultural" tab to contain just this sort of data. That way, people could feel free to fill it with references in our culture, thus more fully fleshing out the living ideas related to the subject for others and for posterity, while simultaneously keeping the kernel of the article clean and simple. --Walkeraj (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but calling it "trivial" sounds to me exactly like IDONTLIKEIT. The selected examples from pop culture don't simply mention the spelling difference in passing but are about it, and are culled from a much longer list. They show that this confusion is common enough, and well-enough known, to be the subject of such treatments. And you keep calling for research, which is exactly what we don't want. As for etymology, it will be of no use, since both versions have the same etymology; they are simply different people's notions of how to set the word down in writing. I'm going to hold off on restoring it for a while, to give other people a chance to give their opinions, but if you remain the only objector then I will restore it. -- Zsero (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
While this is an article about Ketchup, I think that there is a point to be made here somewhere and that the back-and-forth editing should stop. I think that a third opinion is necessary at this juncture as you seem rather set in your opinion and I in mine. What do you think? ∴Walkeraj —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
That's what the talk page is for. Let's see if anyone else chimes in. I will point out, though, that the section has had multiple "third opinions" in the past, in the form of all the people who edited and commented on it. -- Zsero (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
To be sure, but I was not using a double entendreplay on words. I was literally referring to the official "third opinion" page, which is for the case when no one does chime in. So, let's say, give it a couple of days and if neither of us have changed our minds, we can make the official third opinion request and get some eyes on it before any further editing occurs. Or, since my edit is the one that currently stands, I could change it back now in good faith. What do you think? ∴Walkeraj 22:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Walkeraj. Without any analysis this listing is unencyclopedic and inappropriate to the article. It fails to enlighten the reader in any meaningful way. -- SiobhanHansa 00:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


Heinz Ketchup, Del Monte Catsup, and Hunts, who could not decide on a spelling and bottled under the names Hunts Catsup (east of the Mississippi), Hunts Ketchup (west of the Mississippi), and Hunts Tomato Cornchops (in Iowa only).

Read more: All About Ketchup (Catsup) http://www.globalgourmet.com/food/sleuth/0799/#ixzz33G6licUU

A blogger at Slate Magazine did some original research...asking the three major US national brands to chime in.

Update, April 22, 5:25 p.m.: According to a Heinz spokesperson, Henry John Heinz first brought his product to market as “Heinz Tomato Catsup,” but changed the spelling early on to distinguish it from competitors. And Dan Jurafsky tells us that Del Monte did not switch spellings until 1988, after it became clear that ketchup was the spelling of choice for American consumers. (Hunt’s went with ketchup significantly earlier, he says.) http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/04/22/ketchup_vs_catsup_differences_none_at_all_video.html

00:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Southern U.S. barbecue sauce

Coming from a region in the southern United States which prides itself on barbecue competitions, I certainly have not seen all barbecue sauces, as they are usually proprietary family secrets, but most of the sauces I've encountered either use vinegar or true tomato paste rather than ketchup as the base ingredient. However, on the flip side of the coin, in the many meatloaves I've encountered in this region individuals have used ketchup rather than tomato paste as the primary sauce/glaze. 12.168.178.251 02:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I am also from the southern states and I agree with the above statement, I have only seldom seen catsup as a barbecue sauce base. In most, if not all of the meatloaves my family and friends have made used catsup. Dylpickleh8 (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Carl.bunderson has four times removed this link, claiming that it's against WP policy because it's a commercial site. This link provides "meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article". What other site shows such a wide variety of ketchups? Yes, it's commmercial; so what? Since when are we hostile to someone making a buck? What are we, communists? The only relevant question is not whether our including the link helps the proprietors of the site linked to, but whether it makes the article better, and I believe it does. If someone should happen to follow the link and decide to order one of these ketchups, that's very nice and it should give us a warm fuzzy — it should certainly not horrify us with the thought that we might have actually helped someone make some money! — but that's not our purpose here.

Oh, and BTW, WP:EL is a guideline, not a policy. It's something to follow when appropriate, but it cannot trump actual article-related arguments. -- Zsero (talk) 08:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

What content does it provide that is not suitable for inclusion in the article? It is a site where persons can buy many different kinds of ketchup. If people want to know about the different kinds of ketchup, then take the time to write about them in the article. There is no reason that info can't be included in the article. And yes, WP is against commercialism. That has already been explained to you on your talk page.
The link does not improve the article, it is nothing more than providing advertising for ketchupworld.com. WP is not meant to help persons make money; allowing commercial sites in the ELs is a Pandora's box. If users want to buy ketchup online, they can google 'ketchup'; that is not the purpose of WP.
Guidelines are still meant to be followed; editors need to have a clear, justifiable reason for violating guidelines, rather than will-I-nill-I choosing when to observe them. Carl.bunderson (talk) 09:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing to replace this site as an example of the wide variety of ketchups that are available. A prose description will not do, any more than a prose description is an adequate replacement for a fair-use image. And we do allow fair-use images, and use them extensively, even though WP has a strict policy against using them unnecessarily. In many many articles we decide that it is necessary, because a picture is worth a thousand words.
And no, WP is not hostile to commercialism. WP is not itself a commercial enterprise, but it is not some sort of communist institution. If someone makes a buck off WP, there's nothing wrong with that, WP just won't go out of its way to help them, because that's not its job. Links are to be judged by whether they enhance the article, without regard for whether they help someone else as well. This link does enhance the article, and that's why it should be restored; if it also happens to help ketchupworld (whoever they are) make some money, that's nice too. -- Zsero (talk) 09:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm unconvinced that the link adds anything of value to the article. Just tell people that there is a wide variety of ketchups that are available. They don't need a website selling ketchup to figure that out. The lead already says, "Ketchup started out as a general term for sauce, typically made of mushrooms or fish brine with herbs and spices. Some popular early main ingredients included blueberry, anchovy, oyster, lobster, walnut, kidney bean, cucumber, cranberry, lemon, celery and grape. Mushroom ketchup is still available in some countries, such as the UK, and banana ketchup is popular in the Philippines.", and the origins section also discusses ketchup variety. If you want to tell people about ketchup, tell them; WP is not a link repository. A proportionate reason is needed for going against the EL guidelines, and none has been demonstrated well. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I've already answered this. WP has a very strict policy against fair-use images except when necessary — and yet we routinely deem them necessary, rather than rely on prose descriptions. Why? Answer that and you've answered your own question as well. This link adds at least as much to a page as a picture of an article's subject does. That's certainly enough to justify ignoring a guideline. The overriding part of EL is "meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article", and this fulfills that in spades. -- Zsero (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing meaningful or relevant that the link adds to the page. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
It's like arguing with a wall. What does a photo of the subject add to an article? Why can't you just describe what the subject looks like? Are you going to go around ripping out every fair-use photo from WP? Answer me that. Anyway, I'm going offline soon until tomorrow night. If, when I come back, the link has not been restored, and I do not see here an argument that convinces me the link should not be restored, I intend to restore it. And your IDONTLIKEIT doesn't count as an argument. -- Zsero (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
The link will not be restored, and I will continue to remove it as you restore it. This is not and "I don't like it" argument; it is soundly grounded in WP policy. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
You've already admitted there is no policy. And you have made no actual argument against it, you just argue from nonexistent authority, which amounts to IDONTLIKEIT, and a threat to edit-war unless you get your way. In the absence of any substantive argument, any reason to believe that the article will be a poorer one with this link, I am restoring it. I simply see no reason not to. -- Zsero (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
There is a guideline, which for all intents and purposes, is a policy, and you know that damn well. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
No, guidelines are not "for all intents and purposes" policies. They are very different animals. Now, are you going to come up with an actual argument against the link, or are you going to keep falling back on arguing from a nonexistent authority? -- Zsero (talk) 07:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


Yes, they are. From WP:EL, "This page documents an English Wikipedia style guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." From Category:Wikipedia style guidelines, "Category:Wikipedia style guidelines is a top style guide category for pages related to standards for design and writing of Wikipedia documents. A page may be considered a style guide if it is intended to help keep the formatting, grammar and style of Wikipedia's articles consistent." These demonstrate that the guidelines are meant to be followed; they have authority. Had the EL guideline no authority, ELs would not be often removed from pages on its basis, as they are. The guidelines needn't always be followed, but when they are not there needs to be a justifying reason for doing so. There is none here, ergo we need to follow the guideline. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Still no argument, I see, and you seem to have a problem with English comprehension too. I will restore the link, and keep restoring it, until I see an actual argument for why it should be removed. -- Zsero (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent) How do I have a problem with English comprehension? What have I misunderstood, pray tell? Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You quoted the text that makes very clear that guidelines are advisory in nature, and have no authority, and somehow conclude that they do have authority after all. You also show incomprehension by persisting in applying ELNO #4, which is clearly inapplicable. I ask you now, what do you think is the difference between a policy and a guideline? (Bear in mind that even policies are not literally binding, and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception; now how do you think guidelines differ from that?) -- Zsero (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes they are advisory, but that hardly means that we ought not use their advice. Again: “It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception.” From that, we can see that the guidelines may be disregarded, but only in the application of common sense, and only on occasion. You seem to advocate throwing out the guidelines altogether, because they don’t suit the ELs you wish to include in articles. Given that most editors here think that this link falls under at least ELNO 5, the link ought to be disallowed per that guideline.
And policies and guidelines are different only by degree, not in kind. Policies may be more forceful than are guidelines, but that does not abrogate observation of guidelines. Your aguments seems to lend itself to saying that statutes ought not be observed, because they are not constitutional amendments. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Good grief. Statutes and the constitution are both binding law, the supreme law of the land; WP guidelines are not binding. "Policies are considered a standard that all editors should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature."
You also ignore the fact that even policies "need to be approached with common sense: adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the rules, and be prepared to ignore the rules on the rare occasions when they conflict with the goal of improving the encyclopedia." That's even policies, let alone guidelines.
You also completely ignore the fact that this guideline merely makes suggestions about links that are normally to be avoided. That means that by the guideline's own terms, there will be cases where they are not to be avoided, so I'm not even ignoring the guideline, even though I would have every right to do so if I thought it appropriate. Now make a rational argument about why this particular link should be avoided, without reference to the guideline. Arguments from authority don't deserve respect at the best of times, how much more so arguments from lack of authority. -- Zsero (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I grant you that there are exceptions to the ELNO guidelines, and that their very wording presupposes this. However, there needs to be a good reason for linking to something advised against by the ELNOs; similarly, yes you could ignore the guideline, but you need a good reason for doing so. I and other users fail to see the value in including this link, which ought to be enough reason for you to drop it. My "rational argument" is that this is a commercial site, and we should avoid linking to commercial sites at (almost) all costs. It is standard practise not to link to commercial sites, except when it is the official site of an article's subject. Aside from that, we need to make it very difficult to allow commercial sites to be linked to from WP. Allowing one, may very well open up a floodgate and I'd rather not start down that slippery slope. I looked at the site; I had made ketchup earlier that day, and I had heard on The Splendid Table that there were odd kinds of ketchup, so I wanted to find out more about them. I browsed through the ELs, and I visited that one, and once I found out it is a commercial site, I regarded it as spam. It is a collection of links to buy ketchup. That is not what WP is for. We do not link to commercial sites so people can make money. That’s what googling is for. We already have a big enough problem of spam on here, without adding questionable links. If there were 5 people talking about this, and 3-4 of them thought this ought to be maintained in the EL, I might be more willing to see your pov. But seeing as how you are solo in defending it, perhaps you might see that this is spam, and is a net drag on the page; its negative value as spam/commercial site outweighs any value it might have as a demonstration of ketchup variety. Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I've given you a valid reason, quoted from WP guidelines, which, btw, are there to be utilized; they weren't written for aesthetic value. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

"OK, we've got spam, eggs, ketchup, and spam..." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It fails #5 of WP:LINKSTOAVOID I'm afraid, because it is quite clearly a shopping site. Very interesting, but still a shopping site. ninety:one 21:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
So it might be citable as a source for specific types of ketchup, but not as a general link? Or is it even a reliable source? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I've already addressed this several times above. How about answering that, instead of just citing ELNO again and again? EL is a guideline, it is not binding, and I have given a solid reason why in this case its advice should be ignored. If you have a response to that reason, I'd love to hear it, but pretending that I haven't given one, or that no reason could suffice, won't cut the mustard. -- Zsero (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Well you might want to consider why the guideline recommends not linking to sites that sell things. Obviously, sites that are hoping to sell stuff have a conflict of interest when it comes to presenting reliable information. Consider (to pick a random example from the site in question) "Hela Knoblauch Gewürz Ketchup Würzig - imported from Germany. This garlic sauce is a delicious versatile sauce that will add a zesty taste to a variety of dishes. An all-purpose gourmet sauce." Well, maybe it's delicious, maybe not, but if you buy stuff based on claims like these, I've got a bridge to sell you. That's why we generally don't link to commercial sites-- they tend to be unreliable, i.e., biased in the information that they present. Of course, I'm sure you'll say that that is not an argument, but I think the rest of the universe will see it as one. -- Mwanner | Talk 22:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
The reason the guideline recommends against links to purely commercial sites has nothing to do with their reliability; whether a sauce is delicious is obviously an opinion, not a factual statement, but a site that's trying to sell the stuff is certainly a reliable source for its existence, and for all factual descriptions, since factual misstatements about a product risk prosecution as fraud, which is much more than can be said for most of our so-called "RS". ELNO recommends against links to such pages because they tend not to add value to an article, and people with COI tend to add them despite this lack of value. But it would be absurd to claim that such pages can by definition never add value to an article, and this is a clear counterexample. I'm still waiting to see a specific argument against inclusion of this link, to answer the solid reason I gave for why it should be included. -- Zsero (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Were this a "clear counterexample", as you claim it is, then there would not be three persons strongly arguing that it ought to be left out of the page, among five who have commented on the matter. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Leave the mustard out of it! I'm afraid it meets #5 perfectly; there is no information, merely a catalogue. 22:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
A catalogue is information. And by its nature that information is not suitable for inclusion in the article, which is precisely why it's a proper EL. -- Zsero (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
But it still has to be reliable which is why one shies away from links to sites that sell the very objects upon which they purport to supply information. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Already answered above: commercial sites are more reliable than other sources for factual statements about their products. ELNO#5 has nothing to do with reliability. -- Zsero (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you can't truly believe that "a site that's trying to sell the stuff is certainly a reliable source [...] for all factual descriptions, since factual misstatements about a product risk prosecution as fraud." So you generally believe everything you read in advertisements? I don't think that "answer" would fly with very many people. Hell, we're in the financial crisis we're in right now because mortgages were hyped as "affordable" to people who couldn't afford them. It wouldn't be difficult to supply a laundry list of out-and-out advertising lies, put out by companies that clearly didn't give a damn about liability for false claims. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah? Why don't you try spotting some lies in advertising. Post them here, and notify the FTC. I'll take the word of an advertiser over that of the NYT or Reuters any day; it's far more likely to be correct. In any case, you have no basis for your claim that ELNO#5 has to do with reliability. -- Zsero (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, where to start. Maybe Wikipedia's own False advertising, and then there's Pack of Lies The Advertising of Tobacco, Tobacco Advertising Lies, The truth about lies in ... advertising, www.naturalnews.com/024210.html [unreliable fringe source?] Cigarettes, Lies, and Pet Food Advertising] A spin doctor is pimping High Fructose Corn Syrup as 'good for you', Advertising Agency Lies Liars and the Lying Lies They Lie About, Dish Network Lies Fraud and False Advertising, Lies and Scams, Truth in Advertising and IQ Derma, False Advertising, Lies and Bait and Swtitch Tactics, Seniors and Family Caregivers Beware of False Advertising Lies, Lies that hurt our profession, part 2. That should do for a start-- "false advertising" gets over a million ghits. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
And while it's true that I have no basis (other than common sense) for claiming that ELNO#5 has to do with reliability, you have no basis for claiming that it doesn't. If it's not a matter of reliability of information, why, exactly, do you think we suggest that such links not be used? -- Mwanner | Talk 01:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I have said before that the fact that there are a variety of ketchups is, yes, interesting and of value. However, a commercial site is not the way to go about letting users know this. I see no reason why the article could not further discuss ketchup varieties. That is not unsuited to the article. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
And I've already answered that at least three times: WP has a strict policy against unnecessary use of fair-use images, and yet we use them all the time rather than replace them with text descriptions. Why is that? Answer that, and then explain how a text description here would be sufficient. -- Zsero (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
That argument is irrelevant here; you're comparing apples and oranges. Fair-use images are not the same things as ELs. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Or tomatoes and peppers. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
That argument works in my favour, not yours. Fair-use images break a policy, not merely a suggestion contained in a guideline. Other than that, how are they different? How would a text description be sufficient replacement for this link, but not for half the fair-use images on WP? "A picture is worth a thousand words", isn't it? -- Zsero (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Fair use images are not against policy, as such. But there are rules under which they can be used. I happen to think the rules are way too restrictive, but I understand the reasoning. And although you think the New York Times is not an appropriate source, that's not the consensus view. And a site whose purpose is to sell something is automatically suspect. There was a user here a couple of years ago (Tecmobowl) who insisted on linking a particular website whose purpose was to sell baseball cards. He fought it long and hard on the grounds that it provided "unique" information. Not only was the site finally disallowed, the user ended up being banned. However, that was in part because he was running the website. But even if he wasn't, the mere fact of its listing many baseball cards was insufficient to allow it to be used as in the list of external links. Its purpose was to sell stuff, and wikipedia is not the Want Ads Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Besides, you're arguing that, because some violations of some policies exist, therefore all policies are meaningless? By that logic, the fact that people get away with murder sometimes means that it's OK break laws generally. -- Mwanner | Talk 01:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Cure for aids

err, has anyone else seen the second paragraph where it says ketchup's the cure for aids? 82.33.12.20 (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. -- MarcoTolo (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Dead horse

I recently reverted an edit saying that "Dead horse" was Aussie slang for ketchup. It sounds like rubbish to me, but as someone has called me on Assume Good Faith, I'll ask here. Is it? SkylineBNR34 09:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is a reasonably common name in Australia Amargosa (talk) 02:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Why? The link to rhyming slang somewhat explains the reason, but what were the original words used?--Cyberman TM (talk) 11:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Urban Legend?

Is there any truth to something i heard. It didn't seem to mention it in the article. Was Ketchup was sold in the 1830s as medicine? 203.222.110.46 06:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No, of course not! It was a well-known sauce used with food. And it was something one made at home, not something one bought from a snake oil salesman. And almost the defining characteristic of patent medicines was the weird names their makers gave them, so as to stand out in people's minds. Sorry, this makes no sense. Zsero 07:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, when the tomato came to Europe and North America it was first believed to be poisonous. Many people, some promiment, spoke on the tomatos behalf as it were, and the fruit was seen as a very healthy choice. Poiuy998 (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

One of the references links my page on the subject ("Pouring ketchup - full technical explanation"). Occasionally I get visits from that link (I monitor visits). But I am now dismantling my web site, so the link is obsolete. Temporarily, I put my page as PDF which you can find if you follow the old link and read down. It will be gone by April 2009. Icogitate —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC).

Word origin

The mainstream theory as referenced by the AHD, Merriam-Webster etc is that "ketchup" comes from Malay, which in turn probably came from Chinese. The Euro-Arabic theories are in a distinct minority, being as far as I can see only espoused by their originators. Jpatokal (talk) 06:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV concerns

OK, I have to challenge this document's bias. The document implicitly has an US viewpoint, that isn't consistent with other countries. Aside from the second paragraph, this is sufficiently dealt with.

For example, the History section documents "Ketchup" from a purely American perspective. References are made to the Webster's dictionary and the US FDA. (To assist neutrality shouldn't there be a global history, or at least a break down by country?)

There is no Wikipedia article on tomato sauce as a condiment, instead you are directed here by the Tomato sauce article. However, the Tomato sauce article itself says of S. African/British/Aussie/NZ tomato sauce is "...similar to that known in the US as 'Ketchup'". The word "similar" is not equal to the word "same". Maybe a "Tomato sauce (condiment)" article is needed in addition to this one. 220.101.92.39 (talk) 07:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Erps - that's me, forgot to sign in. Belfry (talk) 07:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No in popular culture section? I'm disappointed, wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.226.38 (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

High fructose corn syrup

The article is a great description of ORGANIC ketchup but not much else. All brands except organic now use high fructose corn syrup, an incredibly unhealthy new additive which is causing all kinds of health problems including obesity. If this page is not corrrected it is a total lie, a heinz shill, and against the best interests of the real truth and its readers.

Can you point me in the direction of a source of this information, it appears to be just your oppinion, but i will check it out :-) philb 16:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I certainly wouldn't call this article shill or "false and misleading in all respects", but the prior poster is correct in saying that commercial non-organic ketchups contain high-fructose corn syrup. I just did a quick check of the ingredient list of the two leading American brands, and they both contain the ingredient. Can't comment on claims that an ingredient is the cause of obesity, and that seems to be a rather multifactorial situation that would not be suddenly corrected by the elimination of all high-fructose corn syrup1.72.144.198.140 16:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at the article on HFCS that goes into how HFCS can easily cause obesity. The parent post is based on fact, not opinion. 98.225.174.197 (talk) 04:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I just added a sentence to the Nutrition section that links to the HFCS article. fintler (talk) 04:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
All digestible carbohydrates can contribute to diabetes. All digestible fats, proteins, and carbohydrates can contribute to obesity (food can make you fat). As for liver disease the study says may contribute. Unsourced or improperly sourced statements about HFCS will likely be deleted. This is an article on ketchup not a vehicle to launch a campaign against HCFC. Weetoddid (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you'd like to take this on in the HFCS article then if you feel a statement there is incorrect. As long as some ketchup contains HFCS, the statement is relevant to its nutrition. fintler (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd also like to say that I'm open to the statement in the article being modified from the way it's currently stated. I don't see removal as acceptable. fintler (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Start with a source in this article.Weetoddid (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
It appears that a great deal of work has gone into the HFCS article maybe the intro should change corn syrup to HFCS with a link. This is an article on ketchup we don't need info on the dangers of sodium, water poisoning, damage to tooth enamel from acid in the tomatoes or vinegar, the dangers posed by the solvents used in herbal extractions, etc. We sure don't need any controversial unsorced statements.Weetoddid (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Good call. I just made the edit and removed the statement from the nutrition section. fintler (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Dead horse citation ([2]) doesn't work in for me

I get a "Invalid IP found -- Blocked." message when I click on the external link. Ironically, I'm from Australia. Are there any other places where we can get a citation that doesn't block people out for whatever reason? - Snip3rNife (talk) 10:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

You have a section called 'etymology' which states the origins of the word are unknown, citing a reference no one can read. Yet in your very first graf under 'Origins' you explain thoroughly where the word comes from. What gives?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.50.43.195 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 9 March 2009


Also why is it called "Tomato Sauce" in Cantonese, when there was no tomato in it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Growlingbear1970 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

dispensing into a paper cup

"An older method", sure... but "some places still use it"? It's popular in a lot of places and will likely become more so with our increasing consideration of ecological matters. My own work canteen has just shifted from piles of ketchup and mayo packets to a pair of pump dispensers with paper pots. One presumes that even with the larger portions people may afford themselves, and the cleaning required, it still works out less wasteful (something we get bonus grants for) and more profitable that way - otherwise why change? 193.63.174.11 (talk) 13:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

True that! I'll update. - RoyBoy 02:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Corn Syrup "typical"?

The second sentence in the article states that "high fructose corn syrup" is an ingredient in "typical" ketchup. I know that this substance (whatever it is) shows up in most foodstuffs in the USA, but is it equally common worldwide? If not, I'd suggest that it's not an ingredient in "typical" ketchup, only "American" ketchup, and the sentence ought to be updated accordingly. For what it's worth, the ingredients in Heinz ketchup in the UK are (or were, when I was a kid whose eyeline at the table was level with the label) "tomatoes, spirit vinegar, sugar, salt, spices".

How about changing it to "The ingredients in a typical modern ketchup are tomato concentrate, vinegar, sweetener (corn syrup, high-fructose corn syrup, sucrose, or other sugar), salt, spice and herb extracts (including celery), spice and garlic powder" Weetoddid (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
As there were no objections, I have changed the article to the above wording. Weetoddid (talk) 02:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The list of contents for tomato ketchup on heinz.co.uk certainly lists sugar and not HFCS. I cannot find a similar list on heinz.com. 86.24.70.90 (talk) Moriarty 10:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Tomato Sauce?

Ketchup is known as Tomato Sauce in Australia - perhaps in other countries too?? (suspect U.K.)

This explains the Aussie 'dead horse' rhyming mystery.
In the United States we're divided on this subject. Some say ketchup and some say catsup. Even the manufacturers can't make up their minds. Tomato sauce is something else again -- a canned substance made up of liquified tomato with salt added. -- Zoe
Yeah in the UK it's usually called 'Tomato Sauce' but Ketchup is almost as common. 80.46.160.59 02:52 Nov 24, 2002 (UTC)
In the UK, we call it "tomato ketchup" or "tomato sauce". Now that I come to think of it, I'm not sure which is used more often. I mean, if I'm buying it in a shop, I'll look for "H**** Tomato Ketchup" (phew, averted some inadvertent advertising there), but when I ask for it, I might ask for the... tomato ketchup, actually. Ah, looks like that wins. Except if I'm reverting to a childlike state, in which case it's "red sauce" (as opposed to "brown sauce", of course). I suspect it depends who you ask... Oh - I see that it does. Sorry, 80.46.160.59, I wrote this before I saw your response, and I can't be bothered to change it now! (Oh, but I suppose I should add that we never call it "catsup"!) -- Oliver Pereira 03:06 Nov 24, 2002 (UTC)
Oh, it's all too confusing. Now I've started thinking that I might call it "tomato sauce" more often after all... But why am I wasting my time thinking about such trivial things? Perhaps I should just go to bed... -- Oliver Pereira 03:08 Nov 24, 2002 (UTC)
I just added "catsup" as a redirect to "ketchup". I'm surprised you guys didn't already add it yet you insisted on having the traditional debate. Tjdw 03:16, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Here in Australia, Ketchup and Tomato Sauce are NOT the same thing. Ketchup contains a lot more spices than Tomato Sauce, most notably cinnamon. After eating Tomato Sauce for decades you can really notice the cinnamon when trying Ketchup. No-one here eats Ketchup, and we definitely don't call it Tomato Sauce. If anyone can be bothered, an edit for clarity would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.208.120.249 (talk) 09:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I've never known anyone to call it Ketchup outside of TV shows.

In the USA, "tomato sauce" refers to what amounts to a very thin and unseasoned marinara sauce, the major ingredients are tomato, water, salt, with some added items that vary. Dogface 11:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Nik nah 06:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Ketchup is not very popular in Australia. It's referred to as tomato sauce in Mcdonalds because they only sell ketchup there and no one is used to using the word ketchup so they call it tomato sauce. But in the supermarkets, there is definately a difference between the two: http://upcolaph2.colesmyer.com.au/fcgi-bin/sam.fcg?aab=VK584cS116&aaa=013&aac=3794&aag=All+Sauces
Well, the condiment this article covers is called Tomato Sauce by me, and as far as I know, everyone I know, everyone and anyone I buy it from, and the labelling. I too live in Australia, by the way. It is popular, it goes on meat pies and hot chips. I went to the Philippines, they call it Ketchup, but never once did I taste anything that remotely reminded me of tomatoes.
What is this 'Brown Sauce'? Worcestershire Sauce, Gravy, Barbecue Sauce?--The Chairman (Shout me · Stalk me) 12:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
There's actually a difference between ketchup and Australian tomato sauce and it is more likely to be noticed by people used to ketchup than the other way round - The difference is the absence of vinegar in tomato sauce. It's basically the same thing and used for the same purposes, but the lack of vinegar makes it less tangy. Australian tomato sauce is also not quite as viscous as ketchup. 70.189.213.149 11:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The article would lead one to believe that all Commonwealth countries refer to it as 'tomato sauce', but in the UK the terms 'ketchup', 'tomato sauce' and 'tomato ketchup' are used interchangeably. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.41.241 (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Surprising no one's mentioned Heinz.

That picture is pointless and should be removed. -- stewacide 07:46, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

  • Regarding the new caption:
Tomato and ketchup. No, it's not really made this way.
... Ha! I know it's not quite appropriate in an encyclopedic context, but it's amusing, so I will look the other way and see if anyone else changes it. As for the picture... it's interesting. At least it's a lot more professional looking than someone's photo of a bottle of ketchup in their fridge. - Eisnel 00:11, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Etymology

I think the word "茄汁" could have been a mistake.

Both the Oxford English Dictionary and Encyclopedia Britannica states that the Chinese words similar to "ketchup" means a brine of pickled fish. How the Canton word for tomato sauce fits in this picture I dont understand. There is obviously a serious mistake here. Could someone look into the Chinese signs, please?

If ketchup indeed originated in Chinam, with the meaning tomato sauce, this would indeed be sensational. Signifying that the chinese invented the tomato ketchup, and that the ketchup-variant made from pickled brine, came after. This must be completely wrong. The truth, I suspect, is that the first chinese words for ketchup means brine of pickled fish. -8. JUN 2006.

Or that the word that Westerners picked up, and that eventually became "ketchup", came after the Chinese started using tomatoes (or eggplants) instead of (or as well as) fish. -- Zsero (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The current text (17Mar08) makes it sounds that Indonesian 'ketjap' is a fish sauce, but it is a soy sauce without any fish ingredients, similar to other asian soy sauces (Kikoman). Dirkjot (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Today it may not be a fish sauce, but the ketjap that Westerners found in the East Indies in the 17th century was. Ketchup has surely changed as much in the East over the past few centuries as it has in the West. -- Zsero (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary

Ketchup: [app. ad. Chinese (Amoy dial.) kôechiap or kê-tsiap brine of pickled fish or shell-fish (Douglas Chinese Dict. 46/1, 242/1). Malay kchap (in Du. spelling ketjap), which has been claimed as the original source (Scott Malayan Wds. in English 64-67), may be from Chinese.
The Japanese kitjap, alleged in some recent dicts., is an impossible form for that language. (? error for Javanese.)]
Thats not a Japanese word, no. Probably Malay or Indonesian. c.f http://www.geocities.co.jp/Foodpia/6374/ketchup.htm
The dutch wikipedia believes the name comes from the indonesian soy sauce 'ketjap' (or kecap). (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketjap)
A sauce made from the juice of mushrooms, walnuts, tomatoes, etc., and used as a condiment with meat, fish, or the like. Often with qualification, as mushroom ketchup, etc.
  • 1711 LOCKYER Acc. Trade India 128
    • Soy comes in Tubbs from Jappan, and the best Ketchup from Tonquin; yet good of both sorts are made and sold very cheap in China.
  • 1748 MRS. HARRISON House-kpr.'s Pocket-bk. i. (ed. 4) 2,
    • I therefore advise you to lay in a Store of Spices, ... neither ought you to be without ... Kitchup, or Mushroom Juice.
  • 1817 BYRON Beppo viii,
    • Buy in gross ... Ketchup, Soy, Chili~vinegar, and Harvey.
  • 1840 DICKENS Barn. Rudge (1849) 91/1
    • Some lamb chops (breaded, with plenty of ketchup).
  • 1874 COOKE Fungi 89
    • One important use to which several ... fungi can be applied, is the manufacture of ketchup.
----
Catchup, Catsup: A liquor extracted from mushrooms, tomatoes, walnuts, etc., used as a sauce. (Common in N. Amer., but in the U.K. now only KETCHUP.)
  • 1690 B. E. Dict. Cant. Crew, Catchup,
    • a high East-India Sauce.
  • 1730 SWIFT Paneg. on Dean Wks. 1755 IV. I. 142
    • And, for our home-bred british cheer, Botargo, catsup, and caveer.
  • 1751 H. GLASSE Cookery Bk. 309
    • It will taste like foreign Catchup.
  • 1832 Veg. Subst. Food 333
    • One ... application of mushrooms is ... converting them into the sauce called Catsup.
  • 1845 E. ACTON Mod. Cookery v. (1850) 136 (L.)
    • Walnut catsup.
  • 1862 Macm. Mag. Oct. 466
    • He found in mothery catsup a number of yellowish globular bodies.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica 16th ed, (1985)

Catsup also spelled Ketchup, spicy liquid condiment widely used in the United States and Great Britain.
U.S. catsup is a sweet puree of tomatoes, onions, and green peppers flavoured with vinegar and pickling spice that is eaten with meats, especially beef, and frequently with french fried potatoes (British chips); it is the universal condiment of fast-food sandwiches.
In Britain, as formerly in the United States, catsup signifies a spicy liquid based on mushrooms, unripe walnuts, or oysters; this catsup functions primarily as a seasoning for cooking.
The word derives from the Chinese ke-tsiap, a fish brine, probably by way of the Malaysian ketjap.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica 11th ed, (1911)

http://36.1911encyclopedia.org/K/KE/KETCHUP.htm (OCR copy, without proofreading)
KETCHUP, also written catsup and katchup (said to be from the Chinese kde-chiap or kS-tsiap, brine of pickled fish), a sauce or relish prepared principally from the juice of mushrooms and of many other species of edible fungi, salted for preservation and variously spiced. The juices of various fruits, such as cucumbers,, tomatoes, and especially green walnuts, are used as a basis of ketchup, and shell-fish ketchup, from oysters, mussels and cockles, is also made; but in general the term is restricted to sauces having the juice of edible fungi as their basis.

The Japanese Wikipedia

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%B1%E3%83%81%E3%83%A3%E3%83%83%E3%83%97

ケチャップの語源は、福建語の「鮭汁 kechiap」であると考えられる。

The origin of "ketchup" was Fujian dialect's "鮭汁" (kechiap).

  • 鮭: salmon in both Japanese and Chinese.
  • 汁: juice in Chinese; soup in Japanese.
  • Fujian (福建): the Province where Amoy City (廈門) is.
この場合の「鮭」は「塩辛」を指す方言字で、サーモンとは無関係。

In this case, "鮭" (salmon) does not mean salmon. It means salted food in that dialect.

I am not sure. I do not speak Amoy dialect.

「鮭汁」は小魚に塩を加えて煮てから発酵させ、濾過して取れるアミノ酸を豊富に含んだ液体、

" 'Salmon' juice" is the juice made from fish cooked in salty walter, fermented, and then filtered. It's a juice rich in amino acids.

すなわちタイのナンプラー、ベトナムのニョクマム、秋田のしょっつるの様な魚醤である。

Other related products in Vietnam and Japan.

これがマレー半島に伝わって「kichap」と呼ばれ

In the Malay peninsula, they called it "kichap".

Another Japanese theory

http://gogensanpo.hp.infoseek.co.jp/main1.html

ケチャップ

Ketchup

現在のケチャップです2003 年1月11日のNHK「ラジオ深夜便」で、リンボウ先生こと林望さんが、「ケチャップの語源は中国語の『茄汁』のようだ」とおっしゃっていました。おお、そうなのか、知らなかった！確かに中国語でトマトのことを「番茄」（ファンチエ）と言うぞ。中国語の「番茄の汁」がケチャップになったとしたら、ぴったりだ。ということで調べてみました。

According to Mr. Ling Wang (林望) (January 11, 2003, NHK), ketchup seems to have been "茄汁" (tomato juice) in Chinese.

  • 茄: Chinese: eggplant; aubergine
  • 蕃茄: Chinese: tomato (lit. babarian's eggplant)
  • 番茄の汁: Japanese: tomato juice
『ランダムハウス英和大辞典第2版』（小学館、1994年）には、英語のketchupの語源はマレー語であり、その語源はさらに中国語の広東方言か廈門方言にさかのぼる。その単語は中国語（共通語）の「茄」＋「汁」と同根である、と書いてありました。

Randomhouse English-Japanese Dictionary 2nd edition (Shogakukan Inc., 1994): "茄汁" (tomato juice).

『世界大百科事典』（平凡社）の「ケチャップ」の項目（平野裕一郎執筆）には、「東南アジアから中国南部にかけての地域で古くから調味に用いられてきた塩蔵魚貝類の浸出液に起源を持つもののようで、中国福建省廈門周辺ではこうした魚醤をケチャップ（koe-chap）と呼ぶところがあり、類語は各地にあった。これが伝わったものか、18～19世紀のイギリスの料理書には、牡蠣、マッシュルーム、クルミ、キュウリのほか、魚や漿果類に食塩、酒、香辛料などを配した各種のケチャップが記載されている」、と書いてありました。

The World Encyclopedic Dictionary (Heibonsha Publishers Ltd.): fish sauce.

昔はいろんなケチャップがあったけれど、いまではケチャップと言えばトマトで作ったケチャップを指すようになったようです。魚醤に起源を持つとなるとケチャップの語源が「茄汁」であるというのは、ちょっとあやしくなります。

"茄汁" (tomato juice) becomes less convincing.

『オックスフォード・イングリッシュ・ディクショナリー（OED）第2版』には、英語のketchupの語源は中国語廈門方言のkoechiapあるいはke-tsiap（塩漬けにした魚介類の汁）である。マレー語のkechapはおそらく中国語に由来する、と書いてあります。

OED: fish sauce (see previous explaination).

周長楫編『廈門方言詞典』（江蘇教育出版社、1998年）を調べると、「【月＋奚】」（発音をかなで書けばクエ）という語が載っていました。そしてその意味は「塩漬けにした水産品」です。廈門方言と台湾語はどちらも中国語の閩南方言に属し、非常に近い関係にあります。そこで台湾語の辞書も調べてみました。

Zhou's (周長楫) Amoy Dialect Dictionary (Jiangsu Educational Press, 1988): pickled sea foods.

台湾総督府編『台湾語大辞典』（国書刊行会、原本1931年）に「コエ鮭」（小魚や蝦などを塩に漬けたもの。塩辛）という単語とともに、「コエチァプ 鮭汁」（肴に塩したとき出る汁）という単語が載っていました。

Taiwan's dialect is similar to Amoy's.

Taiwan Dialect Dictionary (1931, published by the pre-WW II Japanese occupation government): "鮭汁" ('salmon' juice).

OEDによれば、英語のketchupの初出は1711年です。そのころ廈門はまだ貿易港としては発展していません。当時の福建省南部で貿易港として栄えていたのは彰州です。彰州の言葉も廈門と同じ閩南方言です。でも廈門と少し発音が異なるところがあるようです。東方孝義編『台日新辞書』（台湾警察協会、1931年）によると、廈門の「コエ」は彰州の「ケ」に対応するのだそうです。もしそうなら彰州では「鮭汁」を「ケチャップ」と発音するはずです。英語のketchupにより近くなります。

Author's theory:

  • Amoy was not an international harbor in 1711 (OED's first instance); another harbor "彰州" was.
    • Amoy dialect: "ko-i"
    • 彰州 dialect: "ke"
  • English: kechup
『ランダムハウス』では英語のketchupの直接の語源はマレー語だとしていました。武富正一著『馬来語大辞典』（欧文社、1942年）を調べると、確かに「kechap」（ただしkechapのeは日本語のエではなくウに近い音）という単語が載っていました。その意味は「醤油、ソース」で、そして「中華語の転訛したる語」と書いてあります。どうもマレー語のkechapはもともと魚醤の意味だったものが、醤油に変化したようです。さて、英語の ketchupの直接の語源はマレー語でしょうか、それとも中国語でしょうか？中国語の閩南方言だと考えて不都合はないと思われるので、ここでは中国語であるとしておきます。

More about the Malay word. Too tired to translate this paragraph.

結論：中国語閩南方言「鮭汁（コエチャップ）」→ 英語「ketchup」→ 日本語「ケチャップ」。(2003.2.4)

Conclusion: Chinese dialect 鮭汁 -> English "ketchup" -> Japanese "ケチャップ" (ke-chia-pu) (February 4, 2003)

My opinion

As a native Chinese speaker, I always use "魚" (yu, please use French pronounciation) to describe "fish". "鮭" is only used for "salmon" (鮭魚). Personally, I think both theories are somewhat fishy. The usage of "鮭" in Taiwanese, as far as I know, is also very restricted. -- Toytoy 02:54, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)


In Cantonese

In the 19th century most of the immigrants from china to the USA spoke cantonese. --Nik nah 08:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Malay

I'm no expert, but Merriam-Webster cites the origin as Malay, so I've added that to the article with a citation. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There aren't any contradicting theories here. The Malay word comes from Chinese and this is agreed upon by ALL Malay etymologists. Morinae (talk) 09:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Got source? The American Heritage Dictionary only rates it as "possibly" coming from Chinese. I've rewritten the section accordingly, and added one more fun theory just for yucks. Jpatokal (talk) 07:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
They don't say where they got it, but my 1974 Joy of Cooking claims "This condiment originated in Malaya, and its name derives from the native word for "taste." No other as familiar an American food seems to have so many variations in Spelling. Incidentally, as to one of the citations needed on American spelling, both Joy of Cooking (1974) and Betty Crocker (1981) spell it "catsup." The former has a recipe for it; the latter lists it as an ingredient for sloppy Joes, among other things. I realize this probably smacks of "original research," but that's what we do over in Wiktionary. We seek words in use in various sources, in various eras. --Dvortygirl (talk) 03:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

another Chinese word: 柿

Another Chinese word we can consider is 柿, which means persimmon. Some phrases comprised of 柿 are used for tomato in many Chinese dialect. For example, 西紅柿 (west red persimmon) is used in Mandarin and 臭柿子 (stinking persimmon) is used in Min Nan. These two phrases both mean tomato. 柿 is pronounced as [ki] in Min Nan. I haven't found any evidence, so I just leave a note here.--mingwangx (talk) 00:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Ketchup Wloclawek.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ketchup Wloclawek.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Viscosity

The "viscosity" section has no references at all and, I would say, no interest, either. It needs serious editing, specially when it comes to the "best techniques" part, which I find totally unnecessary and in poor style. 24.205.74.8 (talk) 07:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's hilarious. 82.14.195.112 (talk) 13:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Amusing the reader is not the objective of Wikipedia. I think this section should be heavily edited, or removed altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.132.187 (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree....this section is highly irrelevant. Anybody disagree with removing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.38.154.10 (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Tomatoes not considered poisonous

Pioneer America, Volumes 11, Pioneer America Society, 1979, p. 112-113 argues that the the idea that people thought tomatoes were poisonous was a myth. The Encyclopedia America (the origin of the myth) did not list its sources, and earlier documents simply do not mention it.

Per Andrew Smith's "The Tomato In America," p. 40, 2001, "...while some Americans obviously did believe that tomatoes were poisonous, this phenomenon has been blown out of proportion by well-intentioned popular historians. Research has located only three references to the tomato's purported poisonous qualities published in America prior to 1860. One was from a reprinted British medical work, reflecing outmoded beliefs in Britain rather than in America. The second was a facetious comment published in a newspaper." The third, like twenty five possible references to a poisonous nature, were attempts "to explain the discrpancy between the tomato's lack of previous usage juxtaposed to its then current general consumption." Tomatos were not eaten because farmers did not know how to grow them, cooks did not have any recipes for them, and consumers were not so ready to consume unfamiliar foods; not because people thought they were poisonous.

Wikipedia does not mention the cherry tree incident in George Washington's biography, nor does it insist that Christopher Columbus sailed to prove the world was round, so it should not maintain other myths either. 74.236.132.45 (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The topic here is ketchup

This article is about ketchup - the condiment. The history of ketchup, the ingredients of ketchup, the nutritional value of ketchup, the viscosity of ketchup, etc. Then, tagged on to the end, we have a section about... Republicans?

This seems a little out of place to me. OK, it's a lot out of place. Which is why I zapped it last night. Besides, Wikipedia already has a full-length article about the famous "ketchup as a vegetable" brouhaha.

The correct way to handle this is by adding a link to Ketchup as a vegetable in the See Also section. It is not an appropriate use of splitting, because the summary section is not germane to the rest of the article. Belchfire (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Chili Sauce

At least Heinz markets a ketchup under Chili Sauce, which if I remember has slightly more dehydrated onion or garlic (and is not a hot sauce). Is this worthy of mention, though? 76.10.128.192 (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Catsup in Canada?

"sometimes catsup in American English and Canadian English" Did I read that wrong or is it saying in Canadian English it is sometimes called 'catsup'? I've lived all my life in Southern Ontario and I don't think I've ever seen it referred to as 'catsup' even in writing. The only time I saw 'catsup' was in a Simpsons episode where Mr. Burns is struggling between Ketchup and Catsup.

Am I just not looking hard enough? Are there any Canadians who can verify this? I feel like it might have been included because "Canadian English" and "American English" are often thought to be a mostly unified language (sometimes referred to as North American English).Celynn (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You're quite right. Probably added by a non-Canadian! Good catch. 216.58.117.45 (talk) 03:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Once again, someone had made it sound as if ketchup is spelled "catsup" in Canada. The implication is a factual error. Please correct it. Celynn (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


This bothered me too - I have lived across the country from BC to Ontario and Quebec to Nova Scotia and in no place has it ever been called catsup. If they want to make this claim, it needs to have a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.31.248 (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Lycopene hallucinogen?

Removed this line: Although proven to significantly decrease cancer risks, it also has a highly addictive and hallucinogenic effect if ingested in large quantities.

No source, and I couldn't find one. Seems designed to make dumb teenagers eat large quantities of ketchup in search of a high. 71.185.189.130 (talk) 05:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


Actually this is true, albeit academic. The amount of catsup required would be approx 4.5 gallons for a 55kg adult for any effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.167.146.130 (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I wonder who got the job of working that one out, given that the most an average person can possibly consume of anything in one go is about a gallon... never mind that a pint of ketchup would probably make you quite sick... 193.63.174.11 (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Then no doubt you can find a source for this claim. -- Zsero (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

so has anyone found a source?65.49.36.168 (talk) 05:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

TOMATO ketchup

This article should be titled Tomato Ketchup as right from the start it refers to alternative names being tomato sauce or red sauce. All the way through the tomato version seems to be the only one currently available, even though there is a picture of mushroom ketchup. One of the definitions in dictionary.com is "any of various other condiments or sauces for meat, fish etc: mushroom ketchup, walnut ketchup". Even Heinz label their product Tomato Ketchup. Shouldn't there be a general entry for ketchup with links to various types, such as tomato? 82.31.154.124 (talk) Moriarty 13:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Too much on the word

It seems to me there is far too much on the origin of the word, and much repetition. There is an excessive number of quotations merely demonstrating prior use. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an etymological dictionary, so it should be about ketchup, with maybe a few lines at most about the word. Chemical Engineer (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Ketchup is not equal to tomato ketchup

While the origin of tomato ketchup is explained it does not adequately explain that ketchup is a condiment and usually refers to the tomato verity but there are many types of ketchup available and made today. Most ketchups are thin and salty much like worcestershire sauce and mushroom ketchup, it's only the special case of tomato which is thick. I propose the article should better point out the many types of ketchup, but still stating that tomato is the most popular and well known. Schermozzel (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Chinese to Malay

As I have previously stated, all Malay-speaking etymologists agree that the Malay word kicap derives from Chinese. There is no dispute over this. Therefore, if the English word ketchup comes from the Malay kicap, it follows that ketchup ultimately derives from Chinese. If on the other hand ketchup originates from some other non-Malay/ non-Chinese source, then that's a different matter. But let's stop pretending that the Malay-Chinese origin theories are separate contradicting theories because this goes against all etymological convention. I'll try to make some adjustments and provide sources for it, so hopefully this won't cause any arguments. Morinae (talk) 09:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Archiving talk page

As the talk page is currently 98kbs, I recommend setting up a bot to archive some of the older posts. Any objections? - HollywoodCowboy (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Chinese terminology

In the history section, it seems stated as fact that the word derives from the Chinese "brine of fish," but in the terminology section, this seems to be up for debate. 1) I propose that we don't duplicate this fact/theory in two different sections of the article, and 2) We should be consistent with whether it is treated as fact or theory throughout the article. -KaJunl (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ketchup. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 21:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I've never seen this before. If I scroll to the "See also" section and click on the link for "Mustard (condiment)," the link changes position rather than loading the mustard page. It jumps to the next column, right above "Shelf Stable Food." But if I click it again in it's new location, it loads the Mustard article. Can anyone else replicate this? Any idea what's going on? FYI, I'm on a Macbook Air running OS X Mountain Lion and Google Chrome. budpegasus (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

According to this thread, this is a bug in Chrome. I'll leave a note there.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Emoti Boo (talk) 01:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Catsup vs. Ketchup

I read somewhere that the original spelling of the word is 'catsup'. Isn't 'ketchup' a trademark of Heinz? - 76.94.26.38 (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Read the friendly article -- there are quotes from various publications in the 1600s and 1700s using a wildly varying set of spellings ("Catchup", "Ketchup", "Catsup" etc). Jpatokal (talk) 01:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
This ngram comparison is interesting for showing alternate spellings used in books.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Lke seriously 

Emoti Boo (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Soo ketchup is spelled a.differently that's awesome Emoti Boo (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ketchup. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 17:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ketchup/Archive_1&oldid=1136873043"