Talk:Judgment of Paris (disambiguation)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVE of Judgement of Paris (mythology) to Judgment of Paris per discussion below. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Judgment of Paris (disambiguation) → Judgment of Paris — As ironed on the talk page of Judgement of Paris (mythology), both the wine tasting event and the mythological story have prominent levels of notability and would be best served with a disambig page linking to both. Most of the grunt work has already been completed with links and double redirect. After the move, we will do another survey to tie up any loose ends Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Move judgment of Paris (disambiguation) to Judgment of Paris

1. Support About equal likelihood that user intends Wine or Mythology when searching for Judgment of Paris. No clear contender to be main page. Good case for disambig. See my comments on Talk:Judgement of Paris (mythology) Steve.Moulding 20:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Support as nom, though the oppose voters below actually bolster the supporting reason. If you use "What links here" as a guide, the amount of relevant wiki-links to both articles scream for a disambig page. A very strong case could be made for the wine tasting event to be the Primary topic but in fairness and consideration to all, a disambig page is the safest route to best ensure that the reader gets to the topic that they want to get to. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Support, although the event obviously derived its name from mythology, the wine tasting fundamentally changed the wine world. I probably wouldn't be doing what I do now if it didn't happen. :) There's enough of a significant split to warrant the disambig page as the primary. With a film in the works, the wine event will continue to gain prominence. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 20:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

   Excellent point! That will probably soon be an article and another entry on the disambig page which will bring in a fair amount of traffic. All the more reason that a disambig page is truly the best service to the reader. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Move Judgement of Paris (mythology) to Judgment of Paris

1. Support: Fruitless to object, as User:Agne27 has already forced the move. Nevertheless, Judgement of Paris is the mythic theme of the Judgement of Paris. Period. At the head of that page a dab notice to Judgement of Paris (wine-tasting) suffices for the reader who might be looking for a event that was named after the myth, in a flight of wit that seems to be elusive. Other possible uses could be at Judgement of Paris (disambiguation). That would follow the Wikipedia norm. The wine-tasting event may loom unrealistically large on someone's specialized horizon: it's POV. A look at "What links here" would have shown where the general use lies. It's not a wine-distributors' sales pitch, after all. User Agne27 has spent considerable energy today and yesterday "fixing" the redirects, which tends to undercut our discussion here. If I said that I find this unattractive, would I land in jail? --Wetman 13:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

   Um yes, "What links here" shows that there a more relevant articles linking to the wine tasting event. :) Precisely my point. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

2. Support. I believe the mythological reference -- and the artwork, books, and plays based on it -- are the primary usage. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 13:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

   Incorrect. As the discussion over on the mythological page has shown. The vast majority of wiki-links went to the wine tasting and this is before the Wine project has created and expanded on the relevant articles that would also link to the wine tasting event. That would conservatively add at least 30% growth to the number of the articles. Google hits are inconclusive due to spelling differences of "judgement" and different attachment words for the mythological story. Between the two, the wine tasting event has a better claim to primary however, the mythological story story is close enough to warrant a disambiguation page. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

   I must say I still have a sneaking sympathy for the opposition view. I suspect that, one generation ahead, editors of Wikipedia (while celebrating the 2,000,000,000th article with bumpers of sparkling Venusian wine) will agree to revert the change. For the present, so be it. Andrew Dalby 14:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

3. Support, move Judgement of Paris (mythology) back to Judgement of Paris. "What links here" is not a good illustration of common usage. It is a testimony to the industry of WP editors, nothing more. Things like google searches and other reference sources are better measures of how terms are used outside Wikipedia. So try searching Google Scholar for "judgment of Paris" and "Judgement of Paris" and you will find articles about the mythological event, works of art depicting the mythological event, and various allusions to the mythological event, e.g. a book on French literary theory, The Judgment of Paris: Recent French Theory in a Local Context. Google scholar doesn't turn up any references to the wine tasting, at least not in the first 50 results.

   Now, a regular Google search on "judgement of Paris". The first two results I get are Wikipedia, so discount those. The next two results are from www.judgmentofparis.com, a tribute to plus-size models. Next, an amazon result for a book entitled Judgment of Paris: California vs. France and the Historic 1976 Paris Tasting That Revolutionized Wine. Then, an amazon result for a book entitled The Judgement of Paris: Manet, Meisonnier and An Artistic Revolution. Then, bunches of results for various works of art (mostly paintings) that depict the mythological event, links to summaries of the story, a couple of bands named Judgment of Paris, and some pages about the wine tasting. However, in this search, the wine tasting is outnumbered by works of art, it's not even close. If I search for "judgment of Paris", I get more results about the wine tasting, but still more about art/mythology. However, in this search, the 8th result is to an online entry from The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy (2002), which is solely about the mythology.

   In my opinion, these Google results show that the mythological event is the primary usage of the terms "Judgment of Paris" and "Judgement of Paris". The term is either a direct reference to mythology, the title of works of art that depict the story (the most famous example being Rubens' painting), or as a witty allusion in various cultural controversies involving France--not just in wine, but in fashion, art, and literary theory. I should also mention that my copy of The Global Encyclopedia of Wine (Wellfleet, 2000) has no entry for "Judgment of Paris" in its index, and as far as I can tell doesn't mention the event at all. Judgement of Paris (mythology) should be moved back to Judgement of Paris, and the disambig page should stay where it is. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

   Google Scholar is a flawed comparison since it is obviously more pertinent to the realm of The Classics then it would be to food and wine topics. It's like using history academia to compare the relevancy of blitzes. Google itself is also flawed due to the lack of an objective search topic and the interdependent variables of the alternate spellings, capitalization and adjoining search words. What Links here, on the contrary, is a pertinent comparison point because it gives credence to the scope of an article in the grander scheme of the Encyclopedia. But then there is the point of a comparison. Am I saying that the wine event should be the Primary topic over the mythological story? No. I'm saying (and using the what's link here for evidence) that there is significant and undeniable notability and relevance to the wine event to merit a disambig page. The "What's link here" provides substantial evidence that a sizable number of Wikipedia readers (and editors for that matter) will be searching for and intending to link to the Wine event. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 10:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

4. Support. I think the mythological event is quite clearly the primary meaning here. Judgement of Paris (mythology) should, therefore, be moved back to Judgement of Paris. --D. Webb 20:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

   Hello. Could you say something more constructive? At the top of this discussion it says Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation Thanks. Steve.Moulding 20:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

5. Support. The "pun" in the famous wine-tasting is itself evidence of the primacy of the mythological meaning. The mythological reference should be at Judgement of Paris semper fictilis 03:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

   So a Brave New World should be moved to The Tempest? Same logic. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 10:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

   Not really, since the Judgment of Paris refers to a large mythological event while 'Brave New World' is merely a reference to a quote from Shakespeare. CaveatLector^Talk 14:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

   Incorrect. The logic is that since this "pun" or "witty reference" was coined based on the judgment of paris that it somehows adds primacy to the mythological story. That is, frankly, a weak argument there are numerous cases where the "pun" eventually eclipses the original. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

6. Support. I feel this one should be obvious. What are we going to place at Judgment of Paris? A wine tasting which might be important to wine enthusiasts or sommeliers, or a mythological reference ever present in western art and literature since Homer? CaveatLector^Talk 14:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Support as per Akhilleus and others. The mythological event is clearly primary. And yes, the primacy with respect to the pun is a strong argument too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

   Hello. Could you say something more constructive? At the top of this discussion it says Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation Thanks. Steve.Moulding 20:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

   No need to. The arguments are clear, and I am hereby declaring that I find Akhilleus' arguments the more compelling. Your mileage may vary, but what needs more explaining? If I had wanted to add something more, I might have said that the mere suggestion that a commercial event of that type could even approach the importance of the (real) "Judgement of Paris" from far is an insult against the foundations of Western Civilisation. But you'd probably find that sound slightly pathetic. -- By the way, I'm not even convinced we need any disambiguation page at all, no matter under what title, since there are basically just two serious entries. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

   Okey doke. I really did want to hear an opinion a little more intelligent constructive than we are clearly right and there's no need to explain why. That's why we're discussing this. That's all! :-) Regards Steve.Moulding 20:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

   You can spare yourself the patronising, thank you very much. I don't need to be taught how to participate in straw polls. But your hassling of opposing voices tells something about your tactics. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

   Beyond that, Future hardly claimed that his reason was we're clearly right, but that the suggestion that a commercial wine tasting event eclipses one of the founding mythological elements of western civilization sounds just a tad bit off key. CaveatLector^Talk 22:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

   Sigh. Look, this is getting silly. D.Webb said I think the mythological event is quite clearly the primary meaning here (end of discussion). Future said The mythological event is clearly primary (and btw he can clearly answer for himself). I (politely I thought) asked for arguments in the spirit of the discussion as has taken place so far. I don't have an agenda, I'm certainly not part of the California wine lobby, I'm not hassling anybody, and, as I've told Agne, I agree with a lot of what you folks say. We're asking for a disambig page, that is all. We're not out to undermine or insult Western Civilization, so please spare us that. Lets discuss, find a consensus, then move on. It's not about us or hurt pride, its about wikipedia. Fair enough? Regards Steve.Moulding 22:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

   Then the consensus is obviously clear here, in opposition to the move. Now, a disambig page is fine, but "judgment of paris" should take a ready to the mythological article that has the customary This page is about the even from mythology, for other uses see: line. CaveatLector^Talk 04:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

I must say I still have a sneaking sympathy for the opposition view. I suspect that, one generation ahead, editors of Wikipedia (while celebrating the 2,000,000,000th article with bumpers of sparkling Venusian wine) will agree to revert the change. For the present, so be it. Andrew Dalby 14:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

---

In addition to my "oppose" statement above, I should note that I don't see any consensus at Talk:Judgement of Paris (mythology) for the move from Judgment of Paris to Judgement of Paris (mythology). I'm inclined to move it back, especially since there was never a discussion about it at WP:RM, but I'd rather not start an edit war. What do others think? --Akhilleus (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that opposition to that move exists means that had it actually been posted first at WP:RM, it would not have made it through as an uncontroversial move, and would have to have been then discussed and a consensus reached before that move would be allowed. Moves seem to be the only thing that can be done without consensus: AfDs require discussion before an article can go, and edits can be reverted; however, the philosophy behind moves seems to be "ha, ha, I got here first." The question ought to be, if this (fait accompli) move had come up in WP:RM, can we assume without doubt that it would have achieved consensus to move? If not, it should be moved back, posted at WP:RM, and true consensus achieved. In fact, I am requesting that it be moved back, and subjected to discussion. I believe there is enough concern about this move to warrant it. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 10:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I did do a good faith effort to generate discussion on the mythological talk page. Outside of Wetman's vague comment (which seem to be more of an endorsement for a disambig page) there were two objections that were eventually dropped in favor of a disambig page. (Though Darby apparently recinded). I do not think there is serious case for the mythological story to be the Primary topic because there is significant notability and relevance to the wine event. I do not think that anyone, in good faith and good conscious can honestly say that the vast majority of readers coming to Wikipedia and searching for the Judgment of Paris will be looking solely for the mythological story. There is a sizable and fair consideration that readers will also be looking for the 1st wine event, the 2nd wine event, the book and maybe later the movie. Primary Topic is not a race or a competition. We have to think about the reader's interest and best service at heart. A Disambig page is the most fair consideration to the reader. As WP:DAB notes If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)". Agne^Cheese/^Wine 10:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that the move was done in bad faith; on the contrary, I believe that it was made in good faith. The whole point of WP:RM is to allow editors at large to see what is proposed for moves, who may not have the relevant talk pages listed in their watchlist. If you believe there is a strong case for the wine-tasting to be the primary topic, you should make it in an RM. It is obvious the move is contentious; therefore the move should be discussed an a true consensus achieved. And I do have the reader's best intent at heart, same as you; I daresay you are not suggesting that I don't merely because I have a differing opinion. What I am saying is that the move in reality lacks the consensus that was assumed (in good faith), and it should be reverted and go through process. Basically, had it been an AfD, it might not have succeeded; had it been a basic edit, it would have been reverted. In either case, the burden of proof for the utility of such a move would have been on the side of the proponents (which is the way it is supposed to work around here). --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 11:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for the wine event to be the Primary topic. I think there is a notable interest in the mythological story as well. With all things consider, it is a disservice to the reader interested in either topic to have one or the other be coronate as the "Primary" topic. A disambig page is the best service to the reader. As for WP:RM, like any bureaucratic process, it can become bloated and weigh down. All clearly expressed objections on the mythological story's talk page were dropped at the time. What was there to assume but that which was plainly apparent on the talk page? If there was a clearly expressed and maintained objection or no discussion at all, then I would have certainly posted at WP:RM. Obviously consensus can change but why should an editor have to develop the "burden of proof" for possible future and hypothetical objections when there are none that are currently be advocated? That sounds like process for the sake and process and bureaucratic overkill. That is certainly not how things are done around here. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 11:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

In my view, there was a clearly expressed and maintained objection by User:Theranos, and it was backed up by User:Wetman and Andrew Dalby. With that much opposition, a discussion should have been conducted at WP:RM, which lets more editors know what's going on--I didn't know that Judgement of Paris (mythology) had been moved until I saw the RM discussion for this page. I don't think you acted in bad faith, but I don't think you evaluated consensus properly, and I think you didn't gather the opinion of enough editors--because as you can see now, there are a number of people who would have opposed that move, if they had known about it. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, hey hey! Now that is just inaccurate! There was a discussion at Talk:Judgement of Paris (mythology) before this disambig survey even started. I quote Theranos...Fair enough, I have not objection to a disamb. page. The two usages appear to be pretty evenly interspersed through the top results of a google search. A disambig. would also allow room for articles on the works of art titled "Judgement of Paris" (several of which also rate very high in these same google restults) - when the art history sections of wiki eventually come to be expanded. --Theranos 12:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC). Andrew Dalby...Yes, I've been meaning to come back here and admit my error. It's undeniable (as I see when gradually following up more of those links): the new Judgment of Paris has overshadowed the old one in notability. No further objections! Andrew Dalby 09:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC). Steve.Moulding 19:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I see Steve beat me to this. And Wetman's "objection" (prior to the move) was the cryptic "A moment's thought on what the Wikipedia reader is normally looking for when they enter Judgement of Paris or Judgment of Paris will save us from avoidable errors. Wikipedia is a reader service. --Wetman 06:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)" Considering the significant and relevant likelihood of the reader searching for the wine event that is undoubtedly on par with the mythological story, this seemed more of an endorsement for the disambig page versus any clear stated objection. So again, without any clear stated objection, why should an RM have been done? Why is there the burden of evidence for an editor to anticipate "hypothetical" objection. Especially in cases where policy like WP:DAB would indicate that a disambig page is the best service to the reader. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Agne, as I've said, I think you acted in good faith, and if you truly couldn't understand that Wetman didn't approve of the move, and you couldn't anticipate how many editors would have objected if you had created an RM discussion, no big deal. But as you can see, many editors would have objected--so at least in hindsight, it would have been better to list the move at WP:RM. --Akhilleus (talk)

Fair points. I've struck out some of my statement, but I still believe that an RM discussion would have been best. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Some general thoughts

Reading the objection comments above, I'm seeing inconsistency in the application of Primary Topic. This begs several questions.

• Does what come first, distinguishes PT? Like Boston, Lincolnshire, Brave New World, Paris (mythology)?
• Does Google hits determine primary? Like Cheddar the town and Cheddar the cheese?
• Does general "importance" of the event determine that? If so, is it fair or even worthwhile to compare two completely different spheres of influence? One is academia, art and the classics. Undoubtedly important in their own right. The other is wine culture and economic related--people's livelihood and region's economy radically changed (for better and worse) as the fall out the 1976 tasting. Cultures and traditions were altered in both California and France as well as the world's experience with wine. Also, undoubtedly important in its own right.
• Or...is it even worth debating? Is it worth counting g-hits, book marks, wiki links, etc. Debating apples and oranges to pears and plum. Does any of that help the reader? Can either pages proponents demonstrate unequivocally that the vast majority of readers and wiki editors will be singularly interested in searching and linking to one particular topic? Can you prove the insignifigance of the other page to where it doesn't merit any consideration? Can either pages proponents contend that Wikipedia as an encyclopedia would be improved and enhance with one page being elevated to "Primary topic" at the expenses of the readers and wiki pages that are interested and linked to the other? If not, then it is fair to say that there is relevance and notability to both pages and the only fair consideration is to have a disambig page as the primary topic. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 11:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Agne's argument that readers are likely to be searching for the wine tasting was based on the number of incoming wikilinks, found through "What links here". This is a bad measure of what readers are looking for. If I wanted to make a WP:POINT, I could create many articles linking to Judgement of Paris (mythology)--Judgement of Paris (Rubens), Judgement of Paris (Lucas Cranach the Elder), Judgement of Paris (Raphael), Judgement of Paris (Benvenuto), Judgement of Paris (Etty), Judgement of Paris (Dali). That's six additional incoming links. Some of those artists, like Girolamo Benvenuto, don't have an article yet, so I could write those and generate a few more incoming links for the mythology article. Then I'll write an article on the scholar Karl Reinhardt, who established that the Iliad alludes to the Judgement of Paris in Book 24. I could also note that the Judgement is a prominent motif in three tragedies by Euripides: Hecuba, Helen (play), and Trojan Women. All of that would be valid encyclopedic content, and I could come up with additional links--why, the Helen article doesn't even link to Judgement of Paris (mythology), and a version of the story is told in Lucian's Dialogues of the Gods. So, as I said in a previous post, "What links here" measures the interest and industry of Wikipedia's editors, but it's not a great guide to what readers will search for.

In contrast, while Google isn't a perfect source of data, it provides an indication of what internet users are searching for, without the biases of WP editors. The lack of hits on Google Scholar does mean something--despite the impact of the wine tasting, it's not an important subject in academia--at least, not under the name "Judgement of Paris". Similarly, the fact that Amazon has two books entitled The Judgment of Paris--one about the wine tasting, the other about the rise of French Impressionism--is an indication that the wine tasting hasn't displaced other uses of the term. Actually, Amazon has more books with that title, including The Judgment of Paris (Recent Researches in the Music of the Baroque Era), a novel by Gore Vidal, something by William Congreve, etc--a further indication that the use of this term for the wine tasting is only one of the ways it's used.

So what makes the episode from Greek mythology the primary use of "Judgement of Paris"?

• It's first in time.
• All other uses of "Judgement of Paris" are an allusion to the myth
• A number of notable works of art are based on the myth (see here, for instance)
• As Google Scholar shows, the myth is the primary meaning in scholarship
• As regular ol' Google shows, there are more webpages about the myth
• More people will search for it, if for no other reason than there are far more college/university courses on Classical Mythology than on the history and economics of wine.

Finally, as I was paging through George M. Taber's Judgment of Paris: California vs. France and the Historic 1976 Paris Tasting That Revolutionized Wine, I noticed that in the index, he has no entry for "Judgment of Paris", but an entry (on p. 321) for "Paris Tasting, French-California wine competition, May 24, 1976." Taber was present at the tasting, and reported on it for Time magazine, and he doesn't seem to think the actual name of the event is "the Judgement of Paris". I therefore have a hard time agreeing that the wine tasting is as prominent a use of the name as the myth. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering that we are trying to grow and develop an Encyclopedia, I would wholeheartedly encourage to create any relevant articles that could be linked to the mythological story. In fact, I'm quite surprised that those articles don't already exist. Though you have still failed to discount to the fact that if a topic is notable and relevant enough to be interconnected with a large number of articles, then it probably a topic of merit. A simple "wine party" would not be relevant to so many articles. (And I will note that the scope is still vastly under-represented due to the lack of "industry" within the Wine Project to yet create and expand the relevant articles.) Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

In regards to your "Primary" article. You just recycle the same flawed arguments. 1.) First-So was Boston, UK 2.) Allusion (i.e. the pun argument)-So was a Brave New World, 3.) Works of art (i.e. importance)- articles, books and eventually a movie will be based on the tasting. But more important is the fact that economies were drastically changed. People lost jobs. People found new ones and the entire palate of world changed within a decade of the tasting as New World Wines gain prominence. 4.) Google Scholar - Again, different scope. Do look up those articles on Google Scholar about Blitzes. 5.) Reg. Google- Too many excess variables to get accurate and objective searches. 6.) Clear OR and impossible to prove- The "What Link here" is one measure of the "relevance" of the topic due to its ability to touch so many articles. But I would put forth a general question, Do you think more people drink wine or take University Classics courses? 7.) Probably the most absurd argument. Considering the book is titled "Judgment in Paris", it would be poor form for the author to constantly refer to it as that instead of "the tasting" in his writings. Of course in places where it is proper to do so, like in noting the newspaper headlines and Time magazine articles following the event he notes in-which BTW is on more pages then just 321 (there is more to a book then an Index). To wrap up, there has been no arguments that could (or should) discount the relevant and significant readership to the wine event. This is not a race and Primary Topic is not a crown. A wise editor has said that Wikipedia is a reader's service and the clear choice for this case is a disambig page. To designate one page over the other is to completely disregard the readers (and editors) needs and interest in the others. I find it hard to believe that editors are seriously advocating doing that. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

1) Boston UK was first, but the US city is obviously more important in terms of population, economic power, educational institutions, and other things that make a city prominent; in general, the US city is more famous, and this can be established through any number of methods, including Google searches.

2) If Shakespeare had written a play called Brave New World, then that would probably be the primary article; however, in Shakespeare, "brave new world" is part of a line, and the novel is the most famous thing called Brave New World. If there were any doubt about this, a Google search could establish that as well.

3) art works--whatever paintings, movies, and books have been created about the wine tasting do not equal in number or notability the works of art based on the myth. Not only Google, but any survey of art history could easily establish this.

4) I don't think this is relevant, because blitz is more ambiguous than our subject. What's more, google scholar will get results for several of the blitzes on that disambig list, including the football tactic. (Not the Seahawks mascot, though.) The point of the Google Scholar search, which I don't think you dispute, is that within academia "Judgement of Paris" usually means the myth.

5) I don't understand what you mean. What kind of "excess variables" are you talking about? Do you have a more objective search method to propose?

6) OR is fine on talk pages. In my opinion, a student who's taking a myth course is far more likely to search the web for "Judgement of Paris" than a wine drinker is to search for the wine tasting. Obviously this is a subjective consideration, but I think that many editors would agree with it. (How does the wine drinker even find out about the '76 tasting? I drink wine, and I didn't know about the tasting until this discussion.)

7) Obviously there's more to a book than its index, but it makes a difference what the author (or indexer) chooses for entries in the index--they create an index for the convenience of the reader, based on what they think the reader will search for. Whoever compiled the index for Taber's book thought that readers would look for "Paris wine tasting" rather than "Judgement of Paris".

None of this disputes the notability of the wine tasting. It clearly deserves an article, I'm glad I learned about it, and I plan to read Taber's book. But I remain convinced that when people refer to the "Judgement of Paris", they most often mean the myth. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)