Talk:Wine/Archive 2

Articles about misreporting of health benefits

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2008/07/08/no-red-wine-doesn%E2%80%99t-prevent-breast-cancer/

http://www.badscience.net/2008/07/you-are-hereby-sentenced-eternally-to-wander-the-newspapers-fruitlessly-mocking-nutriwoo/

Quotes:

"Well. A huge number of observational studies have now been performed in real living humans, finding that people who drink more have more breast cancer. They have included careful analyses, in which they try to account perhaps imperfectly for other possible explanations for this relationship. These studies have even been collected together in a systematic review, and a meta-analysis, where all the figures are run onto one big spreadsheet, and they estimate that overall, half a glass of red wine a day increases your risk of breast cancer by 10%. If their figures are correct, alcohol causes about 6% of all breast cancer in the UK, meaning 2,500 cases a year."

"Which means that, in concluding that red wine could prevent cancer, [the article] ignores the huge amount of existing evidence that arrives at the opposite conclusion."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.226.172.193 (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

External links

I removed external links from the article that I didn't consider appropriate according to WP:EL, and placed a DMOZ link instead, but apparently, what I considered obvious wasn't for others and my edit was partially reverted. So let's open the discussion.

This link was removed: Index of wine-related websites at DMOZ Quote from WP:EL: "Rather than creating a long list of external links, editors should consider linking to a related category in the Open Directory Project which is devoted to creating relevant directories of links pertaining to various topics." Note: ODP is the same thing as DMOZ.

The following links are present currently, but I think they should be removed. I don't mean that these are obvious linkspam; some of them are actually interesting, but Wikipedia is not meant to be a link farm. More specifically, I think "links to be avoided - #10" applies: Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the articles subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website.

• Chateau Hajji Firuz - somewhat defendable. But it would be more appropriate as a reference for the history section, if it was used. The description suggests it is one of the zillion wineries in the world.
• World's Earliest Wine - I don't see why a single image with a description is a relevant link.
• Depiction of Wine in Persian Miniature - inappropriate file format (MS Office), see #5 on WP:EL.
• Wine Attraction - History of Wine - this is a commercial site selling wine-related products. Inappropriate.
• End of the vine - interesting article about the wine industry in Iran, but why is it relevant? We could add 1000s of links to news reports on wine industries all over the world.

Han-Kwang 02:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the trimming down in general, but there are a few things I would prefer to see change. I don't see the need for a dmoz link. I'm not a huge fan of dmoz anyway because it tends to have worse systemic bias than Wikipedia. Sometimes it's very useful, but in this case, the category doesn't seem to be that good - we might as well point to Google. So I would prefer we leave it off and delete the links that shouldn't be here without adding the dmoz link.

I'd keep the upenn.edu site (though I'd change the description - it isn't really about the one winery). It's a dependable and well presented site that has a lot of depth and breadth to information we wouldn't cover in the article even if we got it to featured status. It covers wine in an encyclopedic fashion (i.e. it looks at how wine came in to and impacts our society). It isn't currently a source for the history section so it seems sensible to link to it here.

Given that we don't have a lot of external links I'd keep the Guardian article. I don't think it's the most important link we could see, but it does add a perspective that isn't present in the article (or likely to be well covered). As the article develops I could see this link being deleted as more relevant links become available. -- Siobhan Hansa 04:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The links I restored were (at one point at least) used as references for an earlier version of the article. In retrospect, if the article still includes content sourced from any of these, they should be included in the reference section instead. This article has gone through a lot of revisions, and I think we just missed making proper citations out of these sources.

I believe the need to provide a citation for a source takes precedence over any concerns about the file format.

The vinopolis.co.uk link is entirely bogus and should not be included. I'm fairly confident that in a past life, this web site was more informational and less commercial. In any case, it's not adding anything to the article and should not be included.

The Open Directory Project is something new to me, and at first glance I'm not very fond of the concept. Replacing a few highly relevant links with a link to the universe seems to be a step in the wrong direction. I'm concerned that articles will lose too much value and become less useful to Wikipedia users researching a particular topic. I suppose this is a better discussion for the External Links guide discussion page. Gregmg 05:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

---

I've moved some links into the reference section and added a phrase about wine in the islam for which this article serves as a reference. I'm fine without an ODP link. Han-Kwang 10:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

---

added external link to * the world wines wiki wines database as it seems a compatible wiki endeavor to create a global database of individual wines and people's impressions in an unmoderated forum. --Ecume 21:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed this link because it doesn't seem to meet the criteria set forth in the External links guide. In essence, external links must add value to this article. Presently your external wine wiki lacks sufficient information to add anything new to this article. With information on just eight white wines and twenty-seven reds, it doesn't provide the Wikipedia user with anything substantial. Please reinsert your link after it has become more established and complete. Gregmg 21:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I would second the removal. It looked like an interesting site but...with very little useful content I lost interest quickly. Look forward to seeing it again when there's more content, but for now it's not ready. -- Kind regards Steve.Moulding 21:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

2008 External Links

First thing from WP:EL, "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links."

Once again, look at the first post above. "Wikipedia is not meant to be a link farm." And his citation of the guidelines #10.

• Decanter, website of popular UK-based wine magazine Decanter (magazine)
• The Wine Spectator, a popular wine magazine

As for the 2 magazine links on here, both have copious amounts of advertising (see guidelines). Furthermore, the links themselves as advertisements to these magazines. Why not list any or all wine magazines? that would obviously be too much. Why do these stand out. They don't provide a steady info on wine as a unique resource beyond the article. As magazines the content is temporary and always changing.

• Robert Parker Online by wine critic Robert M. Parker, Jr.
• The wine anorak by wine writer Jamie Goode

Again, why are these critics notable? There are many almanacs of wine (a good external links if its a reliable encyclopedic source) why not cite them. This seems to link to goode and parker's preference for wine and their opinion,. Again a possibly POV addition. (WP:EL#ADV)

Some good links could be resources to wine as scientifically proved to be healthy for the heart or some such thing. Obviously on articles about generic subjects there probably don't have to be links because you aren't going to get an official resource. Unless there's some international body to monitor the standard of wine of whathaveyou.

WP:SEH is also a guideline, although that is not as important as the first stage. Lihaas (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

To offer a response, the current state of this EL section is certainly no farm, but around what I think many would consider a minimum, -barring the mantra "there can only be 1".. That said, there is nothing wrong in looking closely at those links and reconsidering them. Wine Spectator certainly represents a distinct POV, and are a powerful arm in shaping financial interests in the world of wine, and the same can certainly be said of Parker's Wine Advocate which eBob actually links to. I think to a lesser extent so Decanter but it doesn't feel right to make distinctions between these. I'd support that we remove WP from the equation and remove the links from this article. They're all represented in their own articles at any rate. To the Goode site's credit, there is (I perceive) POV independence, and a lot of valuable scientific resources for further exploration into the subject, but it also feels wrong to single out this one voice, so I'd rather support a no-EL policy for this article as with many other articles that sees heavy EL motivation and traffic. The solution I'd suggest is to add a quaint section about "Wine media" and avoid EL's altogether. I would not support a DMOZ link though. MURGH ^disc. 18:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a section on wine media in the article? As you say some of these magazines are important to the world of wine and how it's perceived/sold. I think a 'wine magazine/media' section would be fine. Lihaas (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the WP:SEH guideline is particularly pertinent for the four links that are currently there but I also don't think it's a great selection of links for general readers. Mainly because all four basically provide the same sort of information. They're all basically about wine from a current connoisseur's perspective and unless you were actually a connoisseur it would be pretty uninformative to read through all four (rather than just one). The article covers history, science, religion, and business too. A good external links section would have links that covered all this but didn't repeat themselves. I think we'd be better off choosing the best of the four that are currently there (personally I'd go for the Wine anorak site because of its breadth but I can arguments for any one for them).

I also like Lihaas' idea of a media section. I wonder if perhaps it should be a little broader to cover the growth of wine appreciation as a leisure pursuit? -- SiobhanHansa 19:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Its best to avoid redundancy, i agree. Im not a connoisseur so ill leave it to others to decide whats best.

Would wine appreciation as a leisure pursuit be another category altogether? Maybe "Wine in the Contemporary Era" and then subsection for both? Lihaas (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking it could be broader than just the media because as far I'm aware the media were talking about are all focused on wine as a leisure pursuit (perhaps lifestyle component is more current terminology?) and that putting that media into that context would be informative. It you think it's better more focused that's just fine too. -- SiobhanHansa 21:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, context is good though. I guess the magazines are an outgrowth of the target audience. ie- for leisure. Lihaas (talk) 23:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding WP:EL's discouragement of subscription sites, I'll agree to removal of the magazine links, but I feel very strongly that Jamie Goode's non-subscription site should stay, as it is an exemplar of a free and ultra-reliable source of information on an important topic. - Merzbow (talk) 05:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree there is every good reason to keep Wine Anorak. But in the interest of not making an exclusive decision, I think that link ought to be joined by similarly independent resource oriented links like Tom Cannavan's Wine-pages and Chris Kissack's The Wine Doctor.

I also think it would be good if we made a 'commented out' declaration about the consensus on subscription and soliciting EL's, and urge to first bring new additions for discussion here. MURGH ^disc. 09:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think any one of the links you mention could be good for the article but I disagree with the inclusion of more than one. Links should each provide a unique addition but these sites basically all cover the same ground. We should pick one and look for other good sites that cover different aspects of wine instead. -- SiobhanHansa 11:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Window of Copyvio?

This page on Beer100 has nearly word for word text. Looking at this page history it seems more likely that Beer100 took it from this page but I'm curiously if anything can confirm that. Agne 07:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It does appear to be a copyright violation. Wikipedia content is free to use, but proper attributions must be made. I'm not sure what the current process is for reporting this. Gregmg 16:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The best place to start is by emailing the site owner, pointing out that Wikipedia content is not public domain and asking that he complies with the terms of the license (easy to understand summary here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights#Reusers.27_rights_and_obligations ) by adding links back to the articles he has copied. My understanding is that most website owners just aren't aware they need to do this and they normally comply when asked. If he refuses you probably want to raise it on the mailing list, I believe the Foundation sometimes applies more pressure on recalcitrant websites. --Siobhan Hansa 17:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Please take note that Armenians have been calling it Gini (pronounced Keenee) for over 8,000 years. Please also remove Georgia or Iran as the originators of wine since there is no archeological evidence to suggest that they invented wine since no wine presses have been discovered in the region as old as the technological finds in Armenia. Perhaps Armenians used wine as an export trade to surrounding tribes. Thus, until there are discoveries older than the Armenian press, inclusion of modern countries like Georgia or Azerbajan in the mix of origin of wine is gratuitous and confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.1.173 (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Health implications POV

There should be an explicit mention of the negative health affects of wine in this article. I added it and it was removed. Curently the article's health implications are very much POV in favor of pro-drinking and the negative affects are not listed --- Skapur 01:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources for some of these negative health factors? If so, then you are more then welcomed to add mention of these negative factors with those sources. The section links to the main article Alcohol consumption and health which gives a more comprehensive view of the subject and is very NPOV in tone. From all the sources that I am able to come across, wine drinking in moderation is very healthy but anything that is overindulged can produce negative effects. Agne 02:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree about the moderate drinking part. I want to mention the danger of overindulgence. Normally when an article is linked like Alcohol consumption and health this section, it is good practice to give a very summary (at least a couple of sentence) overview of the article. I would be happy with that. I am not saying that the Alcohol consumption and health is a POV article, I just want to give a couple of sentence summary of that article before sending a reader off to that article. The text I want to add (that was reverted) is simply: "Overconsumption of alcohol including wine can cause some diseases including cirrhosis of the liver. Alcoholism can result from a dependency on wine and other alcholic products." --- Skapur 02:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I encourage to you to re-add that section and would certainly support its place in the article but it would be helpful to attach it to a reliable source. Agne 02:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see a source that states that wine consumption in particular causes problems If it's simply alcohol, then Alcohol consumption and health is quite sufficient. Frotz661 09:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

How can you separate Wine from Alcohol? The link without an introduction to the link is simply not sufficient. I just want to add the two sentences that I have quoted above. Also for links, how about: http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/quickstats/general_info.htm , http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4422 , http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/alcohol/SC00024 . Also general info at http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/alcoholconsumption.html --- Skapur 05:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Alcohol is a component of wine, as are a multitude of other constituent ingredients. Going into detail on over consumption of alcohol in this article makes no more sense than going into detail on the negative effects of a tannin overdose. At present, the medical implications section provides a wiki link to Alcohol consumption and health and it provides the caveat as long as it is consumed in moderation. This seems reasonable and neutral to me. Any further discussion would introduce a point of view and detract from the article. Gregmg 15:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to completely disagree. The argument about tanins is a made up argument. Other Alcohol based articles do not tout the medical benefits of drinking that type of Alcohol, only the Wine articlee does. The article ONLY talks about the good affects of Wine, not about the bad affects. And there is an overwhelming body of evidence about the dangers of overuse of Alchool (see references quoted by me above) that are not there for tanin. Also, the body of evidence points to asking non-drinkers to not start drinking to get the benefits. As currently written, the article seems to be arguing the opposite and may be advocating non-drinkers to start drinking to gaint the touted benefits. --- Skapur 04:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, I may be wrong, but from what I have read, it is the tanins that provide medical benefits, not the aloohol itself. --- Skapur 04:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, is there some substance in wine that apart from alcohol presents an appreciable health risk? If all you're worried about is alcohol, then the article needs no change. Frotz661 07:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The argument about tanins is a made up argument.

I used tannins for illustrative purposes. An excess of anything may be dangerous.

Other Alcohol based articles do not tout the medical benefits of drinking that type of Alcohol, only the Wine article does.

There are few, if any studies that suggest that other alcoholic beverages have health benefits, but nearly every week another study is released that describes newly discovered benefits from the consumption of wine.

The article ONLY talks about the good affects of Wine, not about the bad affects.

This article is about wine, not alcohol. As previously discussed, the article provides a link to the alcohol consumption article, and it also has the caveat about moderation.

As currently written, the article seems to be arguing the opposite and may be advocating non-drinkers to start drinking to gain the touted benefits.

I don't read it that way, but if you have a reference that includes this specific caveat, why don't you add it to the article. Any modest revisions that are properly referenced and written from a neutral point of view will likely be allowed to remain.

Gregmg 14:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Occam's Razor

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the health benefits of wine are the same as those of grape juice. Can anyone prove that the supposed health benefits are from the alcohol itself? If so, wouldn't beer have the same ones? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.122.208.51 (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Since this is an encyclopedia article, we cannot engage in original research. We can only cite published studies. If you can find a study that indicates grape juice has the same health benefits as wine, then we should include it. I've read that grape juice consumption has some of the same health benefits as wine, but not all. A quick search of Google yields the following page which briefly discusses this. [1] Gregmg 19:04, 29 January 2007

Ok, I realize that I cannot ABSOLUTELY PROVE anything, at least not to everybody's satisfaction. But common sense would imply that it is precisely the alcohol found in wine that contributes to relaxation, lower heart rate, blood pressure, etc. that gives it, in light or moderate consumption, more health benefits than mere grape juice. If anybody feels like it, please provide "proper documentation/referencing"; I'm too slow and too tired to reference the obvious ("Grass is green"; "fire is hot"; "ice is cold"; etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.125.178 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 25 February 2010

Opening sentence

Changed opening sentece and provided a reference. I think this way it looks better.Charleenmerced ^Talk 19:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced

Medical implications

• We hsould talk about recent research that suggests that wine helps in slowing aging. These are some relevant articles:
  • http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/daily/0308/24-antiaging.html
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resveratrol

Charleenmerced ^Talk 19:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced

Some trimming & Splinter articles

I have done some trimming of the large list and tables from this article and moved them to the appropriate splinter articles. They're terrific bits of information but I do think the success of this main article is tied to it being lean and focused. As splinter articles readers will still be able to access the information they want but we will be able to keep this main article concise. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience?

"The higher molecular weight of red wine makes it less volatile and less aromatic then white wines. Being served at room temperature, opens up the vapor molecules and makes the wine more aromatic."

This sounds muddled to me. It seems to need rewriting and/or a reference or two. Anyone? --82.41.42.96 17:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, need sources and to fic the then to than whitne wines...Charleenmerced ^Talk 18:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced

Um....it is sourced. Currently ref #20 H. Johnson & J. Robinson The World Atlas of Wine pg 44-45 Mitchell Beazley ISBN 1840003324. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, well, if that quote appears in the source then it is still nonsensical. How does red wine have a "higher molecular weight" than white? --82.41.42.96 20:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well Hugh Johnson and Jancis Robinson are two very reputable wine sources, however they are not scientists. If you can find a reliable source that contradicts them, then by all means, feel free to include it. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Try 'the average molecular weight of the aromatic compounds in...' red and white wine. For instance, white wines tend to have more esters (banana, bubblegum flavours) which are relatively low molecular weight and relatively volatile - Beaujolais is one of the few red wines that can have a lot of esters, and surprise, surprise, is drunk much cooler than other reds. There's also the question of balance - whites tend to be lower in acid and tannin, both of which tend to mask the aromatics, so you need higher temperatures to release enough volatiles to overcome this masking effect. FlagSteward 11:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

A Preliminary GA self-review

Just a view thoughts on how I would rate this article at this point according to the Good Article Criteria back in my GA reviewing days.
1. It is well written. - Weak pass

• On par with most GA quality but would need a thorough copy edit vetting before reaching FA "Brilliant prose" quality. The prose has some rough edges, admittedly caused by some of the splinter article trimming, that need to be smooth out.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. - Weak Needs Improvement

• In progress. We are still working on providing citations for the areas needed or removing/rewriting text that can not be verified as is. Once we are done then this should be an exceptionally well referenced article.

3. It is broad in its coverage. - Needs Improvement
We've trimmed the fat and made use of splinter articles but there are several key areas that we need to beef up.

• History of New World Wine in the history section. The text that previous was there made scant mention of the New World and what it did mention was a word for word copy vio.
• A section on Winemaking with a link to the main article and a brief paragraph describing the vine to glass process. We talk a lot of about wine in this article but for the uninformed reader the question that pops up is "Where does it come from?". Currently there are brief mentions and glimpse into the process scatter through out different sections. We need to consolidate those into one part.
• The "Packaging" section could use a little love and some fleshing out. Nothing more then a paragraph worth but certainly more then what is currently there.
• At least a stub article to kill off the one red link in the article Garagista

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy - Pass

• Maybe a little more effort to be diversify from the US-centric/Old World centric views that hit different sections at different times but overall this is a Neutral article.

5. It is stable - Pass

• Relative, as we are actively working on improving this article at the moment. But there is no current conflict, revert warring etc.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. - Pass

• I think the article does a fine job of illustrating its topic with various pictures.

Overall, I think we're close to a GA but when I would not have passed this article when I was a reviewer. I think once we can tackle some of these concerns, we should submit for GA status and also put in a Peer Review request. We can use this as a stepping stone to eventually get this article up to FA. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Linguistic observations about the etymology

A linguistically minded reader spotted the sentence about the word for wine originally coming from Georgian, "by some accounts". It has been marked as needing citation, but I don't think there will be any citation showing that the word really came from there. It's evident that the word has been in Indo-European, Semitic and South Caucasian languages (Georgian is part of the latter family) for thousands of years, in all of them, and it just isn't possible to establish in which of those families the word originated (or if it originated somewhere else, or if it originated in a mother language of all those families, which is possible but can't be conclusively shown either, at least with the current understanding). Sure, there have probably been some accounts insisting that, for instance, it is specifically the South Caucasian that the word originates in, and those accounts could be referenced in this context. What would probably me more helpful, however, would be to point out that the word for wine is a very old word going back thousands of years in the Indo-European, Semitic and South Caucasian language families. Oghmoir 21:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I am not a big fan of the etymology section myself. There is too much gray area in the scholarship and I think its presence in the article is POV magnet. Any other thoughts? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I decided to shorten the etymology section. There is plenty of nice information that's on quite a solid footing and I didn't want to get rid of all of it, but I shortened it so I wouldn't be too elaborate for an article about wine, not the etymology of wine. Oghmoir 23:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Your edits have certainly improved the section. Thank you! Agne^Cheese/^Wine 06:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Vitis muscadinia?

The article references another species of Vitis as a hybridizer: Vitis muscadinia. There is no Wikipedia article for this species, and muscadines are actually Vitis rotundiflora. Does anyone know if this is a real species, or an error? --DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 13:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Jack Keller describes Vitis muscadinia as being an incorrect name for Vitis rotundiflora. [2]. I'll make the change. Gregmg 23:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, current scientific consensus is that Muscadinia rotundifolia is an entirely separate genus, that is the parent of the Vitis genus (going back to the time that all continents were joined in Pangea); the former has two less chromosomes than all Vitis species, to give you some idea. See the monograph Muscadine Grapes, edited by Fouad M. Basiouny and David G. Himelrick (ISBN 0979754604)-- --Biturica (talk) 01:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

We all know that wine was being made in Armenia dating back 8,000 years ago as cited above. The Georgian language is not part of the Indo-European languages, nor semetic languages or any other language group. The chart on Indo-European languages and their origins can be verified on the back of The American Heritage dictionary (third addition). One will note that the Armenian language dates to the Hitites some 8,000 years ago. Thus, it is very clear that Armenians through their Hitite origins must have invented wine that spread throughout Europe through their culture and language in the process of making it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.1.173 (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Please do not include speculations by Georgian scholars. We don't need speculations and it is misleading and superfluous. Etymology is extremely important in examining how knowledge/technology was communicated to wandering tribes. The Armenian word for wine is gini (Keenee) that has not changed for 8,000 years. This was a name brand in which the the rest of the world understood it. Armenia sat at the cross-roads of the world where this technology spread throughout including to the semetic tribes (Mongolians) which did not occupy Armenia until the 13 century AD. What semetic tribes call it is unimportant as they did not have grape fields to tend to in their nomadic lifestyles. Moreover, to imply that Azeris are originally Caucasian is inaccurate and misleading as well. As mentioned before, etymology is extremely important to understand in the name brand Gini (Keenee) and how that technology was communicated to other parts of the world. That could not have been done by Georgians. They may have vats containing residue but they certainly don't have the wine presses and the fermentation technology to have communicated to the rest of the world.

"Health effects" table

The Nutritional Info table is too small, I can barely read it. Does anyone know where the template came from? --mikaul 10:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It's the usual {{nutritionalvalue}} template - and it looks fine on my computer, same font size as everything around it. --DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 19:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm using Firefox on a Mac. Just checked and it's the same tiny font with Safari and Explorer, but at least with these two I can read it. I'll check my font aliasing in FF. Thanks for the feedback. mikaul 23:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Barley Wine is not a wine

In the first paragraph I submit that the statement on barley wine is not accurate. Perhaps something like:

While the name is confusing barley wine is not a wine. It is a style of beer and the name comes from it's relatively high alcohol content. 209.195.158.249

The article correctly indicates that Barley wine is a starch based beverage. The term Barley wine is a generally accepted term. The wiki-linked article correctly indicates that Barley wine is an ale. I don't believe there's an issue. Gregmg 23:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No issue, except someone looking for Barley wine might be forgiven for expecting to find it mentioned under "wine". You could set up a disambig link I suppose, but I'd say this mention serves the same purpose and has vague anecdotal value. A propos of this, I think it's worth mentioning Ginger wine. However if you feel there should be a re-think of all this and have a better proposal, feel free to edit. mikaul 23:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Carioprotective vs. Cardioprotective: typo?

In the section Heath effects, resveratrol is said to be carioprotective. Are you sure the author didn't mean cardioprotective? Since wine is mildly acidic, I would expect it to have a negative effect on tooth decay, since enamel slowly dissolves in an acidic environment. Cardioprotective makes more sense. pmoresch, 03/16/2007 17:05(EST).

I suspect you are correct. I've never heard of wine having any sort of dental benefits. The source cited for this requires registration, so I'm not able to double check it. Hopefully someone with access to the referenced study will be able to check on this. Gregmg 23:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The article abstract indicates that resveratrol acts to decrease platelet adhesion. That's clearly a cardioprotective event; I've changed the article to so indicate. --DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 19:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Goon

Why isn't there a separate article on goon? As anyone in Australia with a drinking history will tell you, it is a noteworthy subject, one with which most Australians are well acquainted. Goon connotes more than only the wine packaged in casks: it connotes the whole culture, albeit one of being trashed on goon. I could write the hangover section. RedRabbit1983 15:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

There is an article devoted to Box wine - I'm sure you could contribute something there or on Bum wines. FlagSteward 14:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Not anymore. I stood down from my research post, after a distinguished night-long career. Most of the culture has been documented; see Goon of fortune (a drinking game based on a popular TV show with a kitschy reference to a mediaeval motif). However, I should like to visit the chateaux in the cardboard region of France someday. I hear their wines are of the best quality, especially those stored in goon-bags. RedRabbit1983 06:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't count on it. But I agree they are surprisingly good.--Tprosser (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Chemistry

There's not much about the chemistry of wine. I guess potentially that could be a whole new article, but we could at least start with a section in this one. For instance, over on Winemaking there's a proposal to merge in Volatile Acidity, which would sit more naturally in a chemistry section here.FlagSteward 11:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add some about the chemistry involved with wine. Specifically, I was wanting to write some about the testing that is done on wine (pH, Alc. tests, vol. acidity, titra. acidity, etc.) Should this be added in the general wine part or written in the winemaking part? Any suggestions? Helmin51 (talk) 06:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I share the opinion that it could be a whole new article.--Symposiarch (talk) 13:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Big Old Vats

I must argue that the cited fact that wine is made in 'big old vats' should not have been reverted as vandalism. 81.145.241.121 22:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You used that content as vandalism before. Its a patent nonsense addition you added for a laugh. VanTucky 22:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

European labeling of varietals

I believe that many if not most French wines omit information on the varietals used. Until recently this article contained language to that effect. It has since been replaced by the following language:

"Within Europe, only the 'vins de table' (in French) or 'vino da tavola' (in Italian, i.e. cheaper bottles that include a blend of different grapes) do not include information on the grapes used."

I believe this to be patently false, but I am not sure that I am the best person to correct it, so I will leave this comment here for a week in the hope that somebody more knowledgeable about labeling can take care of it.PatronSaintOfEntropy 00:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If anything it tends to be on the vins de table that you do see varietal labels. You don't on the really dodgy stuff, but if you're in the Languedoc and wanting to ape the New World with varietal labelling, then you'll probably be doing it under the vin de table regime. Same sort of idea that led to the Super Tuscans being released as vino da tavola. Appellation wines generally have pretty strict rules on what varieties can and can't go in, so simply by having AOC on the front label implies the use of particular varieties. You might get them detailed on the back label though. FlagSteward 14:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any real consistency world-wide on the inclusion of varietal information. Some wines do, some don't, simple as that; I do not know of any countries which mandate such information. These days, more wines do provide such information but I haven't noticed any particular correlation based on country. Canderra 12:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. It is just a more common practice in some countries or wine producers. Others simple don't care. Redish Flag File:Flag of the kala church.jpg 16:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that until recently French AOCs were not allowed to have their grape varieties listed on the label but that rule has now been relaxed. (Ajkgordon 12:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

Merged cooking wine

I went ahead and merged Cooking wine into this article. The cooking wine article didn't seem to be expanding or going anywhere and it fit perfectly into this article. This article does need to be trimmed down though. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

External Links

I noticed that this page has several external links to commercial sites, thus seemingly violating the posting rules. Since this page has designated editors I was wondering if there was any particular reason why these links have been permitted. Also, my own compilation of less well-known white varietals @ http://www.cylive.com/viewContent.do?id=904&vt=pub might add value to the page. Your feedback would be appreciated. I have added the above link in the External Links section. --Winefreak 17:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Chateau Margaux a 'cult wine'????

It seems very strange to see Margaux labeled as a 'cult wine'. I've never seen that qualification for this wine in any kind of wine-related literature. If it were a Le Pin or maybe even Petrus.... then I could understand. But now it just seems plain wrong to me. Being bold, I've removed that qualification from the caption. --194.171.252.100 10:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

flag icon issues

So what is going on with this table?

--Knulclunk 02:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. It's doing the same thing with a lot of SVG flag images. For some reason they keep messing up. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Classification section

The classification section is a bit overbearing, especially when we have a separate Classification of wine article that can adsorb most of the content and serve as a link to this main article with a summary. I'm going to work on the two articles to tidy things up. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I adjusted the classification section showing the correct heirarchy in French wine law starting with Vdt (Vin de Table) to VdP (Vin d'Pays), VDQS (Vin Delimite qualite superiuer) and up to AOC (apellation d'oringine controlee) which is the correct classification. I will also adjust the classification page and show the heirarchy's in various countries such as the DOs opf Spain and the DOC's of Italy. My reference on the change can be found in the Oxford Wine Comnpanion or easily online at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A634222 Cbarrett4 23:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Quarts?

Isn't this a rather arcane measurement of volume? It may be common in the US but I've never heard it being used in Europe including the UK. Or is it a wine industry traditional measurement? Even if it is, we shouldn't be mixing up measurements like this. In the article now, we have quarts, hectolitres and tonnes. In fact the country production stats are a bit of a mess with two tables seemingly contradicting themselves and using different measurements (weight and volume). And some of the tables aren't sourced. I'll do a tidy up and leave the original editor(s) to re-insert when sourced. ᴀᴊᴋɢᴏʀᴅᴏɴ«» 10:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It's still a bit of a mess with the export figures not cited and the two export tables not covering the same countries. The production stats for 2006 are also now available and if I get the time I might do them. ᴀᴊᴋɢᴏʀᴅᴏɴ«» 10:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'll leave the 2005 figures. It seems that some of the 2006 figures are identical suggesting that some of them might be from the previous year. ᴀᴊᴋɢᴏʀᴅᴏɴ«» 11:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

History

The history section is much too long. The content is more or less present in the overview section of the wine history article. Therefore I propose that it be drastically reduced. For example to something based on: 'Wine production dates back to 6000 BC in Mesopotamia. Wine has began traveling around the world in the XIXth century.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winetype (talk • contribs) 21:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it could use some editorial discernment but I don't think a two line summary is ideal. While History of wine is the main splinter article, this article should still provide an adequate overview of the content in the splinter article. It just shouldn't be bogged down with too many details. My guess that such a summary would be more in the ballpark of two paragraphs with the first dealing with Ancient World/Roman winemaking and then second paragraph dealing with the Middle Ages to the Phylloxera epidemic and modern day. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 07:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

improvements

I'm going to be working on this article a bit in the near future, making copyedit passes, then improving references, and who knows what. If I do anything moronic it wasn't intentional so just fix it and/or let me know. If I intend to to anything major to the article I will come here first. - Merzbow (talk) 06:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

We need a section on how to get red wine out of carpet so that desperate partygoers can continue to rely on wikipedia to be their first port of call for reliable facts in important matters!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.140.50 (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Red/white

Why is there no information about the differences between red, white and rosé wine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.171.111.210 (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. What the hell. All I want to know is the difference between red and white. Is the difference the type of grapes they're made from or what?! 68.229.249.12 (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That's covered in our article on wine making. -- SiobhanHansa 16:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Well red and white is probably the most prominent distinction of two types of wine. The Wine article (since there is no "red wine" or "white wine" article) SHOULD, in my opinion, at least have some MENTION of the two most common types and what is different about them, probably in the lead of the article. A "see: wine making" tag or "main article: wine making" can be used somewhere, but the gist of it should be covered here. I would have no clue that the difference between two types of the topic (wine) would be covered in an article on wine making. To me that article is about the process of creating wine and not describing the types of wine simply because the process is what makes them different. "Wine types" is a heading that belongs in this article. TheHYPO (talk) 06:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

i agree, especially since the third 'kind,' rose, has its own page. it's ridiculous that you have to come to this page to find that link mention by SiobhanHansa. let's do something about this!--99.35.132.250 (talk) 05:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 00:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

China 7000 BC

The references added to back up the claim that China 9000 BC should be the origin of the oldest wine actually do not say this. The archaeologists basically found rice wine with some co-fermented fruit, where grapes could have been included, but where hawthorn was another distinct possibility. They also mention the lack of later references to grapes, while rice wines have much more solid documentation. And as you know, rice wine is not wine, and not even a fruit wine, but could be said to bear more semblance to beer in its production method. So I have rewritten the section accordingly, to mention the possibly use of grapes, but what they produced was not wine with any reasonable defintion. Tomas e (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the paragraph, while accurate, is now too wordy, and detracts from the main topic. It was after all a fermented rice-drink with fruit and honey, not wine. May be all this can be conveyed in one sentence and the details moved in History of wine, or better yet History of alcohol? (PaC (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

I agree in principle, but I have a feeling that it will bounce back unless at least a sentence is included in this article. Thanks for the exercise in higher mathematics BTW, 9000 years ago is of course 7000 BC and not 9000 BC. :-) Tomas e (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with the sentence "There are no known indications that these beverages developed into grape-only wine; rather, they seem to be the precursors of rice wine." - while probably true, it seems to skirt close to OR. Does the article explicitly say this somewhere? (I looked and couldn't see). - Merzbow (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I added it based on what's written in other sources, from memory. That's why this sentence comes after the footnote. Although the PNAS article does mention later written references to different types of rice wine. But without the clarification I see a big risk that we get confusion between wine and rice "wine". If you're unconfortable with this kind of clarifying statement, I feel it would be better to dump the entire paragraph after all. Tomas e (talk) 09:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's clear from the previous sentence already that this beverage did not evolve into modern wine: "If these beverages included grapes rather than other fruits, these grapes were of any of the several dozen indigenous wild species of grape in China, rather than from Vitis vinfiera, which were introduced into China some 6000 years later." - Merzbow (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, it is now shortened by one sentence. But we seem to agree that the Chinese mixed beverages should not be presented as the main point in the origins of wine? One unregistered editor, prone to 3rr-ish behaviour seem to disagree. Tomas e (talk) 10:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. - Merzbow (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the "wine" has already found its way into the List of Chinese inventions (see wine), so the attempt to explain the matter in this article cannot have been too effective. Too be honest, it took me four or five time reading the passage, before I figured out that actually not wine, but some fermented beverage was meant. IMO the whole passage needs to be shortened, worded much clearer or removed altogether. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wine yearly consumption, per capita:

The "Wine yearly consumption, per capita:" image doesn't make sense to me. Is it trying to say that, for Australia for example, that between 15 - 30 litres are drunk per person, or per city or what? JayKeaton (talk) 08:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Per capita means per person. I've wikilinked the term so readers who are unfamiliar with it can click through to our article on it in the future. -- SiobhanHansa 10:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

semi lock

need to get this page semi-locked no? the last few days' history has shown the need. Lihaas (talk) 04:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It has become ridiculous. I put in a request. -- SiobhanHansa 13:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Film and television

...has data that doesn't really seem relevant.96.53.149.117 (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

What, for example?

It looks like all the information there is relevant to wine, not merely a show that mentions wine, but for which wine is a central element or raison d'être. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Article date format

This article's date format uses AD/BE instead of CE/BCE. I reviewed the recent (1 year) edit history plus some random older edits; all versions checked used AD/BC. Changing the format to CE/BCE is a violation of WP:ERA. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:ERA calls for consistency within an article, not that it may never be altered.. This is not WP:ENGVAR. As Christ is not the focal point of this article, I would suggest you need a convincing consensus to change this. MURGH ^disc. 04:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

My reading comprehension sometimes is not all that good, but I am pretty sure I understand the meaning of this sentence from WP:ERA: "It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantive reason; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other." Is there a "substantive reason" for converting this article to CE/BCE? Unless there is one, WP:ERA is clear that it should continue using AD/BC. I found the change to CE/BCE because that editor had recently made the same change to a number of articles. Even if the conversion had been CE/BCE to AD/BC, I would still have reverted it. My revert has nothing to do with Christ (why do you mention him?). VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

One substantive reason is consensus, and I agree with Murgh. Articles should not only be self-consistent, but also consistent across the Wikipedia Wine project. Regardless of the abusive behavior you were chasing down when you came across this article, I would have reverted you myself if Murgh hadn't beaten me to it.

Another substantive reason is relevance. "BC" refers to Christ, and such date designations are appropriate for articles that have a Christian context. For the most part, wine articles do not, therefore AD/BC notation could be considered as a violation of WP:NPOV. Better to change the dates to CE/BCE and avoid the potential controversy, however minor. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but your second comment is totally beside the point. Did you actually bother to read WP:ERA? It actually means what it says, not what you personally believe it should mean. Are we going to abide by very well established and long standing guidelines or just do whatever the majority wants? Do you even understand what consensus means? What consensus is there here? A vote of two against one is not consensus. There isn't even consensus in this discussion that WP:ERA is a policy which should be followed since both of you are ignoring it. No, there is no consensus here at all. I checked the wine project pages and recent archives and saw nothing about there being a consensus on the date era format. I would think that the "Wine" article would have been the first one updated if a consensus within the project had been reached, but instead a random (not a project member) editor at a random time makes the change. That is a change made by consensus?

It has already been decided (see WP:ERA) that the use of AD/BC is not a violation of WP:NPOV. If you believe otherwise, then you need to work on changing WP:ERA instead of ignoring it. Wikipedia has policies like WP:ERA in order to avoid edit warring and useless discussions like this one (believe me I have better ways to spend my time), but those policies are meaningless if they are not enforced. I now ask at least one of you to please abide by WP:ERA and restore this article's established era format. I really would prefer not turning this into a WP:DISPUTE. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You may want to start a discussion on Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Wine then. I see two members of the Wine project disagreeing with you here. I also am uncertain why you are so insistent on reverting a change that seems to be a good idea, in spite of the fact that an abusive editor made the change.

You say "Wikipedia has policies like WP:ERA"? WP:ERA isn't a policy. It's a guideline. Those who maintain this article can choose to abide by it, or not, without violating any policy. I have given reasons above why we might choose not to. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

So the entire WP:MOS is just a guideline? Your belief is that editors can simply ignore any part of it they want to? Well, I guess I should stop doing WP:ENGVAR edits since it is just as much a part of WP:MOS as WP:ERA. I guess I need to revert a few thousand edits I have made in the mistaken belief that the MOS was something more than simple guidelines which editors are free to follow or not. I am insistent on reverting it because it does not follow the MOS. There should be nothing to understand beyond that. You on the other hand seem to have a POV which is not neutral (please see WP:NPOV and the various talk pages related to WP:ERA). Believing that CE/BCE is better because BC includes the word "Christ" is not a neutral POV. I believe neither is better and therefore do have a neutral POV. I am simply following both WP:NPOV and WP:MOS.

Once more I ask you to abide by the MOS (and WP:NPOV) and restore this article's date format. VMS Mosaic (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the entire WP:MOS is indeed a guideline that "should be followed except where common sense warrants an exception", as the infobox says at the top. No policy has been violated here. The guideline itself provides a rationale to not abide by it. There is a difference between guideline and policy.

No need for sarcasm or straw-man conclusions; nobody has asked you to revert everything you've done. As the MOS says, either date format is acceptable. The editor you reverted and two others find BCE/CE more acceptable for this article. I have attempted to explain some reasoning above, apparently to no avail, why it's sensible to change the date format to BCE/CE. I fail to see why you are making such a big deal over it. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantive reason" is a declarative statement as opposed to a guideline. It is Wikipedia consensus. None of the reasons given so far even come close to being substantive. The main reason given so far (the C in BC stands for the name of an historical figure) clearly goes against WP:NPOV given the fact that Wikipedia has declaratively stated that BC/AD dates are fully acceptable in any article.

I suggest WP:THIRD as the first step in the WP:DISPUTE process. If there is no objection, I will start the process there. I truly wish I didn't have to make any deal over it, but unfortunately I have run into a situation where a group of editors believe they can go against consensus anytime they want by voting to do so. That type of thinking is diametrically opposed to both the consensus and spirit of Wikipedia. I believe part of the problem here may be WP:OWN (i.e., I am an "outsider" and not one of the article's "owners"). I have been there before; an article's owners are always right and nothing/no one else has a say. No policy or guideline matters, and if someone brings any up, any possible loophole is looked for in order to ignore them. So far "substantive reasons" and "common sense" have been suggested as loopholes which can be used to avoid following the guideline; both of those were meant to be used for exceptional cases (e.g., using AD/BC in an article discussing the meaning of AD and BC). If I used sarcasm, it was in response to the "substantive reason" and "common sense" red herring excuses. If there actually was a substantive reason for the change, then I would have dropped this long ago.VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That's rather amazing. You have now chosen to interpret consensus as WP:OWN, and intend to engage your time and that of others to mediate a dispute ..over this? Yes, FWIW I object. The regular patrollers of this page agree that what you demand is a step backwards. Why would that make you more determined to do the opposite? I concede that by tenacity and wikilawyering you could ultimately "win" (you are not "up against" that motivated opposition) but do you really mean that beureaucratic bullying should trump consensus? MURGH ^disc. 05:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I am confused? How did you get that? I meant that editors who believe they own an article are not the only ones who are allowed to form a consensus on the article. In the first place no individual or group owns an article per WP:OWN. I also happen to be one of the regular watchers of this article (I was delayed in objecting due to medical problems), and I do not agree that it is a step backward. The fact that you believe it would be a step backward is the actual root issue here. You believe per your POV (ignoring WP:NPOV) that BC/AD is bad to use and that CE/BCE is an improvement because it does not contain the name of one specific historical figure. If it was some other historical figure (e.g. a scientist who invented a calendar), I suspect your POV would change. 07:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There was nothing to indicate that you had any deeper involvement with this article than the editor who made the initial change, which was accepted by those who noticed it. It's rich, both that you to maintain "the other two editors start an edit war", and you are the only party concerned with NPOV as the BC/BCE issue is laden with POV connotations, regardless of how it is currently formulated on the MOSpage. I disagree that WP:ERA and WP:ENGVAR are "the same", arming you to police the namespace horizon, and what you have done here is a case of WP:DISRUPT. You don't get to commit WP:3R and claim you act in good faith. Bad form and presumptuousness caused this to happen, not my POV. I also disagree with third party editor jumping in and claiming " There was no consensus reached and there was no violation of WP:NPOV", but by now your issue too distasteful for any more involvement and best be laid dead. MURGH ^disc. 16:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been nothing less than civil (per WP:CIVIL), but I will not allow uncivil attacks and accusations to go unanswered. I most certainly did not violate WP:3R given that I have done only two edits to the article since last year. Making up totally false accusations against me in order to make a personal attack shows a complete lack of good faith and civility on your part. I made the first of my previous 27 edits to this article on 4/5/07. It was an ENGVAR edit. Other edits in 2007 were done on 12/11, 12/5, 12/2, 12/1, 11/7, 11/2, 10/28, 10/26, (2)10/17, 10/11, 9/30, 9/3, 8/20, 7/7, 7/4, 6/30, 6/22, 6/15, 5/17 and 4/19. 2008 edits: 7/2, 5/22, 4/19, 4/9, 3/19 and 2/8. The 5/22/08 edit is particularly interesting in that it was also a WP:ERA revert of a change from AC/BC to CE/BCE. No one objected to that revert nor any of my other edits. I make the exact same type of revert as I have previously done to this article, and suddenly I am being disruptive? I have been editing this article regularly for almost two years, and have no more involvement with it than a new editor who made a couple of recent edits? Are we editing Wikipedia from different universes? I bet the "third party" editor who has actually been an editor on this article for some time appreciates the way you talk about him. I won't go on since I'd likely end up being uncivil. Yes, this entire issue should be laid to rest. The degree of distastefulness reached was quite disappointing. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Two cents While I'm more partial to BC/AD myself, I would probably cast my lot for BCE/CE with this article given the broad international context that we should strive for. However, I don't think this is something that we need across the board consistency on within the wine project and would probably adapt an WP:ENGVAR approach that if someone started an article with one thing, leave it or open a discussion. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The color project's position in regard to WP:ENGVAR (would have the same position on WP:ERA) is that Wikipedia consensus/policy cannot be overridden by a project unless Wikipedia consensus is reached that a project can have an exception to the Wikipedia consensus. I personally would prefer it if the color project could enforce WP:ENGVAR across the project's articles, but there is no, nor is there likely to be, consensus on the project being allowed to do that. The result is that some articles use "color" and others use "colour". I don't like it, but accept it as being consensus. Also the color project has never (as far as I know) ignored WP:ENGVAR and decided to change the spelling dialect of an article via a vote. The color project can't even standardize the spelling of the word naming itself, and yet the wine project is allowed to ignore WP:ERA and change the era format of articles based on majority vote? VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the wine project is allowed to decline to participate in a silly edit war and actually focus on more important things--like content creation. An editor who is not a project member made a change, a group of editors who are actively involved in the article are fine with that change and see no reason to support an apparently POV-edit war over it. If you want to go on a personal WP:ERA crusade (even though that guideline doesn't even support your position), feel free. Just take it to another page (WT:ERA perhaps?) and let us get on with working on this encyclopedia thing. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 04:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Please explain what part of WP:ERA doesn't support my position. No one has yet done so. I guess part of the problem is that I got way behind (30+ days) on my watched pages due to back surgery, otherwise that initial edit would have been reverted within 36 hours. Perhaps if that had been the case, others would not claim consensus was reached. I apologize for the delay, but it takes a long time to catch up on 2121 watched pages (I have to check back to early October in many cases). I have spent 20-30 minutes on some article cleaning up messes spread across 300-400 edits. Unfortunately this argument has put me another day behind in my work. BTW, Wine is actually on my watch list (due to WP:ENGVAR edits, etc.), but I hadn't caught up to it yet.

Someone has to do all the dirty work (particulary vandalism cleanup). If they didn't, you wouldn't be able to create content. I don't mind most of the crap I deal with here each and every day cleaning up messes created by others. While the work has its own rewards, it is a very thankless job. I've been called names, had my manhood called in to question, etc. This is only the second (maybe third; the years go quickly) time I have run into this much of an argument over something so minor. You should have seen the color articles a few years back before I joined; it wouldn't be much of an overstatement to say that every third or fourth "color" had a different spelling. At first, a few editors took exception to my edits, but once they saw I was doing it very objectively there were no more complaints by editors in the color project.

To get this much static over a very straight forward WP:ERA/WP:NPOV edit is very discouraging (makes me wonder why I am even doing this work), but dealing with the static is part of what I signed up for when I took on the dirty work side of Wikipedia. If I don't take a stand now, then why am I even bothering? How can I in good faith revert other WP:ERA or WP:ENGVAR edits if I simply let slide ones where someone objects? It's a matter of being consistent in my work, so that other editors accept my edits as being impartial and objective. As I already stated, I would have reverted this change if it had been in the other direction (i.e., CE/BCE to AD/BC). My guestion is, why are content editors arguing so hard to keep a very minor style change in contradiction to the MOS? Unfortunately my grunt work here may be silly to you, but I take it seriously (if I didn't I'd quit working on Wikipedia).

I would be quite happy to let you do your work if you would simply let me do mine. I'll even agree to remove this article from my watch list and let someone else do the dirty work (assuming you don't drive them away too). VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) clearly states that both styles are acceptable and that edit warring over the two styles is unacceptable. There is no confusion and (more importantly) there is no harm to the reader in coming to a page and seeing BCE/CE dates vs BC/AD. Content is not improved or degraded. There is simply no policy or guideline reason to continue this discussion. All that we have here is a dead horse being beaten and Spider-man getting ready to climb the the Reichstag. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 05:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You are exactly right that edit warring over it is unacceptable, so why did the other two editors start an edit war. I simply did a fully acceptable revert of an edit which was "inappropriate" per both WP:ERA and WP:NPOV. The edit war started after my revert of an edit by an editor who was changing multiple articles based on his POV that AD/BC should be removed completely from Wikipedia. My initial edit was made in the full spirit of WP:FAITH, and I followed up with a discussion with the initial editor. My second revert was because I thought that the editor did not understand I meant WP:ERA when I said WP:DATE. I moved the discussion to talk after that per Wikipedia guidelines. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• BTW... If you seriously want to engage in a colossal time waster and file "a dispute" over a situation where a non-mission critical style change was made and the editors active in the article shrugging their shoulders because it NOT against policy and NOT detrimental to the article, then fine. Have at it. Provided the mediating, third party editors are not annoyed at their time being wasted when more mission-critical disputes are raging over the project, I'm sure not a lot will come from it. But if that is how you would like to spend your volunteer time, go ahead. As for me, I'm going to continue working on Piedmont wine articles. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 06:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

For the past several thousand edits, this article has used the BC/AD designation of eras. Because this method is long-established here, changes to the era designation are unnecessary and not required as per WP:ERA. I've returned the article to BC/AD style. To all: this is a tempest in a spit bucket... why get so excited? Binksternet (talk) 06:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I, too, don't see what the excitement is about. An editor came along and changed the date to BCE/CE. VMS Mosaic came along and reverted it. Some of us monitoring this article agreed with the original change, and reverted VMS Mosaic, who subsequently became disruptive due to being unaware of the difference between policy and guideline. In my view, the correct action would have been to simply accept the change, remove this page from his watch list, and move on. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

See my other response today above. I did not just come along. I made the exact same type of revert last May and no one objected then. Same of us monitoring this article quite obviously did not agree with the original change. Now will people please stop attacking me. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

names I just want to comment that the Arabic word وين "wayn" (found at the bottom of the introduction) means "where" and has nothing to do with wine. Wine is referred to variously by خمر "khamr" or نبيذ "nabidh". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sicarii (talk • contribs) 19:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Acidity and alcohol

I thought you couldnt have acidity and alcohol in the same liquid. If it's alcoholic (i.e. P.H. greater than 7) it cannot contain any acid or acidity, and vice versa. How can the acidity of an alcohol be 3 or 4? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.251.118 (talk) 00:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you have confused Alcoholic with Alkaline? --Sneftel (talk) 03:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Alcohol content

I didn't notice any mention of alcohol content. Shouldn't that be in there?

Also, have wines always been 10-12% alcohol, or is that modern? If different, what was it in ancient times? They seemed to have drunk a lot of wine back when. They should have all died early of cirrhosis, but they seemed to have survived to reproduce since we are here!  :) Student7 (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

See alcohol by volume for alcohol levels of different things including wine. Yes, it could be mentioned in this article.

Since ancient times, the alcohol level of wine has always depended on how much sugar there is in the juice, and how resistant the yeast is to alcohol poisoning. Natural fermentation tops out at about 18% because the yeast doesn't survive beyond that.

The life expectancy of humans was shorter in ancient times too. Living past age 40 became common only in the 20th century. That's still plenty of time to have children. Cirrhosis doesn't prevent you from reproducing. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Grape Varieties and Citation

I need a little help on the blended wines part. How do I cite this correctly? Should I just Indicate some acknowledged wine guide? Normally, the blend is indicated on the bottle, except for bordeaux. For Burgundy, there are no other red grapes than pinot noir and still this is nowhere indicated since it goes without saying (at least in France). What is the best way to cite an authoritative source. I do not want to rely on just one other site (just edited out information that was clearly wrong). Thanks for help Tprosser (talk) 10:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Table under 'health' section is overlapping

uhm, I can't figure out how to fix it, could somebody do it please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tauiris (talk • contribs) 06:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Wine/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

A neutral point of view of Wine would, I believe, give more place to French wines and less to California wines. I didn't see anything about Bourgogne wines, that are supposed to be the best and most expensive ones in the world. the best wine is the red —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.152.8.30 (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Last edited at 15:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 21:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)