Talk:Mayonnaise

History opening distorts otherwise good section

Most of the History section is suitably tentative about the many theories about the origin of the name of the sauce. But as of this writing, the opening paragraph comes down squarely on the claim that it originated in Mahon - which is far from certain and in fact is treated far more tentatively in the same section. Yes, this paragraph is cited to some published sources which make the same claim, but this is a subject for which one can find all manner of different positions in modern printed sources. No source from the period or just after (late 18th into 19th) supports the "Mahon" version. Ideally, the whole paragraph should be removed; the "Mahon" theory still has its place later in the section. 2600:1700:8D40:9B60:E5A4:6A7B:A9CD:2260 (talk) 08:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Untitled

Mayonnaise is an emulsion of primarily oil and AIR - jamusdouglus@yahoo.com - perhaps someone more wiki competent than i would like to do the editing!

Unsourced history

There is some rather remarkable history here to have no attribution of sources. -- Jmabel 22:35, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Over half a year since I asked, and still no references cited. -- Jmabel 02:08, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

Which is the fact that requires more referencing? The rest is deductions of logic, as most history is. recently I added the following opening sentence to the entry Excalibur (movie): "Excalibur is a 1981 film directed by John Boorman, which was a creative innovation in remaking the legend of King Arthur, a gritty and violent anti-Camelot that sparked a new Arthurian film-making style that leads in an unbroken sequence to Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings." Seemed to me like a perceptive, balanced assessment, but you might say, "Where's the proof?" Wetman 02:48, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Look at the first few paragraphs of the section "The origin of sauce Mayonnaise". This is not the sort of thing someone just knew off the top of their head. A charitable assumption is that someone did some research but neglected to cite his/her sources. An uncharitable guess would be that this is either (on the one hand) plagiarized or (on the other) made up. This kind of historical detail should usually be accompanied by a citation. -- Jmabel 05:38, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

The conclusion, inferred from the logic of the quoted references, is mine. I don't know the title of the 1841 cookbook, but I've added an OED reference. You object to a step in the logic? or to one of the facts? Which is the suggestion that needs to be expanded? Notice the use of the expression "it may appear more credible" Apparently it doesn't appear more credible to a connoisseur of culinary history such as User:Jmable. Tant pis. Wetman 05:51, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The OED reference helps a lot. Up till that addition, there was no clue where someone would go to verify this. -- Jmabel 16:04, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

Got a better reference! The suggestion about the duc de Mayenne was first made by culinary writer Pierre Lacam, but whether in Mémorial historique et géographie de la patisserie (privatetly printed, Paris 1908), Nouveau patissier glacier français et étranger (1865) or Glacier classique et artistique en france et en italie, (1893) I can't tell. My bet's on the 1893 title. A reference is now added to the entry at External link. Wetman 05:39, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Questions on the 01:42, 23 Jan 2005 revision

I liked a lot of the revisions to the English. Some questions:

• Why mention tarragon in the introduction? It is just one of many seasoning that could be added; most mayonnaise recipes that I've seen don't have tarragon.

There was a reference to unspecified "other seasonings." The only seasoning whose presence doesn't change the name of the sauce is tarragon. BtW, finely chopped parsley makes "green mayonnaise:" shouldn't that be mentioned among the variations? --Wetman 16:11, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• On the other hand, why move the reference to mother sauce out of the first paragraph? If mayonnaise is a mother sauce, that is an important fact to highlight prominently right up front.

Yes it is indeed. Suit yourself. --Wetman 16:11, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• What does "Other seasonings call for other names (see below)" mean?

It means that the addition of other seasonings calls for the application of other names, such as those listed immediately beneath— "Thousand Island dressing" etc. --Wetman 16:11, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mayonnaise year of origin

It is alleged in the first sentence under the History section that mayonnaise first appeared in 1806, however in subsequent paragraphs, it is revealed that mayonnaise had actually existed in a number of similar variations since the early 18th century - perhaps most notably in 1745 when an infamous cream shortage necessitated the innovative emergency "invention " of mayonnaise. In order to clear up any confusion and prevent further confusion, I strongly suggest that we either cut the 1806 reference altogether or elaborate more on the reason 1806 should be regarded as the birthday of mayo. 2603:6010:E700:1434:2905:C396:42BC:89BF (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence does not say that mayonnaise appeared first in 1806; it says that the name first appeared then, and goes on to discuss the possible origins of the sauce. Ponsonby100 (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)