Talk:Wine

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Joseullin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SerinaNiux.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Added manufacturers

New Zealand, Austria, Mexico, and Uruguay were added to the list of manufacturers. These countries are listed in The Sommelier Prep Course by Michael Gibson, published 2010 by John Wiley & Sons. Raist27 (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Wine to FA by end of the year?

This is one of the more interesting topics in Wikipedia and it should have an article worthy of FA status. I would like to see a collaboration effort to try and get this article to FA by the end of the year. Any one interested in giving it a go? Agne 07:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I think not. There are still enormous archeological discoveries to be made in Armenia that are killing the wild Georgian speculations. We don't need a Joseph Stalin like propaganda to be arbitrated before the discoveries in Armenia can be implemented. There are still glaring inconsistencies with ancient maps and etc....People still have serious doubts with regards to the Georgian claims especially in light of the discoveries being made in Ancient Armenia. Those who control the past control the future. ["1984"]. I would like to see the world Churches get involved with this topic since Jesus Christ himself said this about wine: "This is my blood....."Monte Melkonian (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Some thoughts for improvement

• Content Forks - I think this should be priority #1. The article is quite cumbersome in its current capacity due to the breadth of its subject matter. I think we should treat the wine article like a country article and make productive use of splinter articles and content forks. (FA Examples Canada, India, and Australia). To that extent I think we need to work on some splinter articles based on our current section headings like History of Wine, Wine Production (which should go more into wine making techniques), Classification of Wine (Condense some of the material in the Wine article but keep the material intact in the splinter), Uses of Wine or maybe even more detail in uses and Religious views of Wine and maybe Medical uses of Wine.
• Better in-line citations.
• Get rid of some of the list (which ties into better use of content forks as noted above) and get some pretty tables for some of the data.

Those three are the most glaring to me. Any other thoughts? Agne 08:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: I cut and pasted the current history section in this article into the splinter article History of Wine as a first step. Obviously this is just a starting point and some work needs to be done so that each article has a life of its own. From here we need volunteers who are willing to A.) Continue to work on writing and developing the History of Wine article, with particular notice being paid to good, solid referencing. B.) Consolidate and summarize the historical information from the splinter article into 1-2 paragraphs for inclusion into the main wine article with a link to the splinter article. Again we need to focus on good, solid referencing. Agne 20:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This fork was very useful. Still the history section is too long. Why not shorten it? (by half?) Winetype (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is their a contradiction on where wine originated? There is now archeological proof (oldest wine making operation discovered in Armenia) that wine originated in Armenia. Why is Georgia mentioned as the only place where wine originated when there have been no discovered operations other than in Armenia? These contradictions are confusing to the readers. Moreover, why isn't the Armenian word "Gini" (pronounced Keenee) in the Indo-European languages mentioned? Whys isn't the method/technology and culture (namely, language) of production of wine that was passed to other tribes by Armenians mentioned in the wine making process? Moreover, historically and culturally, why are semetic tribes mentioned in the language section when these tribes were nomadic and had no vineyards to tend to or pass on the technology? Monte Melkonian (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Why include wild speculations without archeological proof that wine originated in Georgia? Isn't it true that the Georgian language is neither Indo-European or semetic? Then if so, why confuse the readers on how the technology/culture was passed to other tribes through language? These are just some thoughts that I find disturbing. Monte Melkonian (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Melkonian, because it is sourced and the publisher is certainly more respected than some shady Armenian sources which have been cited by the BBC and others. How on earth can 6000BC Armenian wine-making sites be older than 8,000BC ones in Georgia? True, the title does claim that it is the world's oldest but the numbers are provided and the rest is simply a matter of math.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 23:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's stick to facts. The Georgian finds are potteries, while the one found in Armenia is a winery - a complete facility. Hayordi (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Please follow the guidelines of respect on this forum with Wikpedia. Archeological evidence by UCLA scientists is hardly shady. They have no atelier motives. However, proclaiming Georgian origination by Georgian paid scholars with wild speculations is not only self serving, but, indeed harms the neutrality of Wikpedia guidelines. There are no wine making operations discovered in what is the so-called "Modern" Georgia. Implying that Georgians invented wine just because they found some residue on wine jars in far off locations is indeed jarring. Monte Melkonian (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

1.I find it puzzling that you accuse me of not following the guidelines of respect even as you accuse a legitimate University of Pennsylvania scholar of being "Georgian paid" without providing a shred of evidence. If you are against "wild speculations," as you said, I think avoiding such accusations would be a good start.

2. I do not see any claims that Georgia invented wine, they are simply saying that the earliest evidence discovered points to that. If they find something dated earlier elsewhere, they will most likely attribute the origins of wine to that place. I'm afraid this is as specific as archaeology can get when dealing with millenia of history. For this reason, I suggest that you vent your nationalistic feelings elsewhere. --ComtesseDeMingrélie 19:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Please don't engage in silly accusations. As I recall, you began the conversation by accusing the scientific and archeological finds with a wine making operation by the "BBC" and "UCLA" as "Shady." That violates the neutrality requirements for these posts. Thus, I see a lot of misinformation and obfuscation from reality. Nobody is going to believe you. Not even the Devil himself Joseph Stalin. Monte Melkonian (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

When Jesus Christ said "This is my blood...", was he talking about Joseph Stalin's Georgia? Or, was he talking about the First country to adopt Christianity like Armenia? Didn't Joseph Stalin spit out the wine in Church in exchange for power as the leader of the Communist Party? These are some the questions that have religious significance with regards to wine. I hope you have some succinct answers without engaging in bating. Monte Melkonian (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding where and when wine originated, there are two statements here to which I would like to respond. 1. "Why is there a contradiction on where wine originated?" Because wine was invented in prehistoric times, so it is unlikely that archaeologists will ever be able to pinpoint the exact time and place. In all likelihood, the first people to make wine left no evidence for archaeologists to discover. 2. "There is now archaeological proof that wine originated in Armenia." Archaeological evidence suggests that wine first came into general use somewhere within about 500 miles of the Black Sea, some time during the Neolithic or Chalcolithic. To say that there is archaeological "proof" that some prehistoric invention originated in a certain country indicates one of two things: a. that the person making the statement never got past 8th grade and doesn't understand how science works, or b. was educated in a dictatorship or third-world country where that kind of hyperbole passes for scholarly discussion. Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

White/Rose images

One of these is clearly a recolouring of the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.79.253 (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Photoshopping can change water into wine... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Health Effects

I find this part confusing: "Professor Valerie Beral from the University of Oxford and lead author of the The Million Women Study asserts that the positive health effects of red wine are "an absolute myth." Professor Roger Corder, author of The Red Wine Diet, counters that two small glasses of a very tannic, procyanadin rich wine would confer a benefit, although "most supermarket wines are low procyanadin and high alcohol."[69]" I don't understand why Beral thinks it is a myth, was this somehow indicated in the Million Women Study? I found an article [5] where she expresses concern for the link between alcohol and breast cancer. But this doesn't really mean that the positive health effects of red wine don't exist. So I think these quotes from the BBC article should be deleted, and possibly replaced with information about the breast cancer link. --Aronoel (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, that whole passage you quoted comes from the cited source. It explains that Beral thinks it's a myth because "the Million Women study reported that just one drink a week increases your risk of breast, pharynx and liver cancer" (quoted from the article).

The passage should be clarified, or expanded using the information in the second source you found. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

India

Removed a rather tall claim about wine being made "for thousands of years" based on "some Vedic scripture" [6], as it is based on a website www.indiamarks.com, which does not appear to be reliable source, especially for a claim like this. Athenean (talk) 22:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Origin of Wine

The recent edits of this article show that in addition to Georgia, wine also originated from Armenia. The claim about the oldest winery being discovered in some cave in Armenia as of January 2011 needs to be checked for accuracy. The only sources that I've found so far point to some articles in Armenia trying to claim that the oldest winery discovered so far is from one of the regions of that country. A thorough check and review of the sources that are included on this page would be sufficient to determine whether such claims are accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.43.1.66 (talk) 06:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. First off, I'm not sure the provided source can be used as a reliable source. Second, source claims winery from Armenia dates back to approximately 6000 years ago. How is that winery the oldest when a vintage in Georgia exist 8,000 years ago. [7] January 2011 edits need to be checked. We need reliable sources about this issue. –BruTe ^Talk 11:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you two should see [8] and [9], I'm shure CNN and BBC aren't Armenian.--Aram-van (talk) 04:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I see two possible sources for the confusion:

• The claims about Armenia were published before the Georgian discovery
• One claim is about the oldest winery discovered, while another concerns the oldest wine. Not the same thing.

I think both facts can be included with the proper explanation and context. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's not be too quick to jump to conclusions and say that one is about "winery" and the other not. Just because the Independent article does not specifically mention a wine-making facility does not mean that those jars have been laying out in the fields or on a shelf in someones house.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 23:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The one found in Armenian cave was a complete winery (a facility) as archiologist stated. While finds in Georgia where potteries with traces of wine (grape seeds). Hayordi (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Me personally, any sources from democrat countries and their scientists are more reliable than former communist aparachi such as Georgians and their beloved serial killer Joseph Stalin. The novels "1984" and "Animal Farm" by George Orwell were written just for Stalin himself. Monte Melkonian (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Those who control the past control the future. Monte Melkonian (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted an obscure (and broken) link, and reverted to the traditional, and widely cited view that the origin of is in the region of Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.16.113.3 (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I want to add the following under the history of wine. The following sources come from the National Geographic and Booze Travelers a show made by the Travel Channel. Here is the following; Archaeological evidence has established the oldest-known winery originates from Armenia. Armenian Wine is at least, 6100 years old; 2000 years older than the Egyptian Pyramids. Ancient Armenia had special, ancient, rituals associated with wine drinking which was connected to fertility of young women. Vitis Vinifera, is the oldest of wine grape species which originated in Armenia in the Areni-1 Cave Complex. Most of the wine found around the world, today; derives comes from the Vitis Vinifera grape from Ancient Armenia. BobbyCole01 (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Apart from the tortured syntax, which is easy to fix, I wonder why these are reliable sources, and whether this is due weight on this article. --John (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Areni-1 cave is the most recent and reliable evidence with regard to wine origin, as it's a well preserved complete winery. The original source of material in references above is UCLA (Uiversity of California, Los Angeles), who participated and as far as I know funded the archeological expeditions to Areni. A simple search on UCLA home page on Areni reveals a list of articles supporting sources above Hayordi (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

http://www.ioa.ucla.edu/publications/backdirt/backdirt-2011/Backdirt%202011.pdf BobbyCole01 (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

So is the following evidence, above (UCLA) acceptable? BobbyCole01 (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Rock solid Hayordi (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

As for direct evidence of wine, Georgia cannot be included, as the archaeologist, Stephen Batiuk, himself notes, "What is significant about this site is that it produced some of the earliest examples of domesticated grapes, which we believe were involved in the earliest production of wine" But for all we know, that could have been grape-juice.2601:882:100:D7B0:8C86:663C:669D:3D0A (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Wine vs beer consumption - ambiguous and irrelevant?

User:BernhardtP recently made this edit to add a table showing wine versus beer consumption, ranked by ratio.

This is meaningless. The measurement is in units of liters of pure alcohol, which is fine when reporting just wine, but it's apples-to-oranges when comparing with non-wine. I mean, if the comparison was wine versus orange juice, or wine versus chicken broth, you couldn't use alcohol content, you'd have to use volume.

And that's the problem with this table. In terms of volume, assuming wine has 3 to 4 times the alcohol of beer, the table simply shows that the beer consumption in most countries equals or exceeds the wine consumption. So what? That isn't surprising.

Because it isn't a valid comparison, I am inclined to remove this table, but I want to see someone else comment first. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Comparisons by alcohol level might be useful for medical or social analysis. Binksternet (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Also: comparisons by cost, or by single unit of sale, or by single serving portion might be of interest for business segment analysis. Binksternet (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the cited source purely has the context of alcohol consumption and its demographics, distribution, health effects, etc. This isn't an article about alcohol, it's about wine, so I'm still not sure how a digression into a comparison on the consumption of alcohol by country belongs here. I have a problem with that source in general for use in this article. It's all about alcohol, so everything there is expressed in units of alcohol. That has little relevance to the article topic, especially since the wine industry worldwide uses volume (bottles, barrels, liters) of actual wine, not volume of alcohol in the wine produced. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I like having the table. Wine and beer are very very commonly compared counterparts. In fact, many legal jurisdictions placed them together in an entirely different category from most alcohol (for licensing purposes and in statistics). It is useful, verifiable, and generally enlightening to have their consumption compared. Steven Walling 04:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, the "consumption" tables are truly a liability. First of all, the country selection is arbitrary at best: The left-hand table seems to be drawing on the countries with the second- through eleventh-highest per-capita wine consumption, while leaving out the country with the highest per-capita consumption. The right hand table is maybe showing the countries with the highest wine/beer ratio?, but that's completely unsourced, is not an intended use of the WHO data and may not be statistically valid. Additionally, as mentioned by Amatulic, measuring by liters of ethyl alcohol is an unusual and misleading presentation of the data. In short, the selection and presentation of the data has rendered it into decontextualized, useless trivia. --Sneftel (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's true the table lacks Luxembourg, the highest per capita consumer, but of course that can be easily fixed. Otherwise, the table does not elucidate the health concerns of alcohol and it does not use prose to describe the situation. I think it should be moved to the article Long-term effects of alcohol. Comparing beer to wine consumption is commonly done but not usually by unit of ethanol. The beer v. wine table should be replaced by prose discussion of relative sales and production. Binksternet (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Good points all. I found a source for per-capita consumption of wine, measured by total volume rather than alcohol volume. (I don't want to spoil the surprise, but it turns out Luxembourg is number two.) --Sneftel (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

New World

Native grapes were abundant in parts of the now-United Sates, but as far as I know, no wine-making was ever done by Native Americans. An explanation of this phenomenon if possible would be of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.127.174 (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Potential references

• Forester, S.C. / Waterhouse, A.L. “Metabolites Are Key to Understanding Health Effects of Wine Polyphenolics”, Journal of Nutrition (2009),139(9):1824S-1831S.
• He, S. et al. “Red Wine Polyphenols for Cancer Prevention”, International Journal of Molecular Sciences (2008),9(5):842-853.
• Yoo, Y.J. et al. “Should Red Wine Be Considered a Functional Food?”, Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety (2010),9(5):530-551.

Centralized discussion on such links in Further reading: here --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Earliest preserved liquid wine

https://www.newsweek.com/oldest-ever-liquid-wine-discovered-gruesome-surprise-inside-1914849

La Sicilia del Vino

Though Sicily certainly produces many interesting wines, I don't see why a book on Sicilian wine belongs in the bibliography of this article. Not because it is in Italian -- there are surely some valuable non-English-language books on wine that belong in the bibliography (e.g. something by Emile Peynaud) -- but because it is too specialized. Even a book on all Italian (or French or American or Australian) wine probably doesn't belong here. I also question some of the other entries in the bibliography. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, and I don't think we should be including how-to guides on buying wine, or multiple introductions to wine appreciation. --Macrakis (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Two five-ounce servings

This is English-specific. I do not know how it should be done exactly, but "two 100 cl glasses" should be added next to the Imperial measure units. --Pot (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Was that a typo--correct finger but other hand? That's 200 cl as in 2 liters, or 67.62 ounces? Cheers Encycloshave (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

"five-ounce" is not English-specific, it is US-specific, and I have no idea how much that is, wine in the UK is sold in Litres/millilitres. The reference quoted says "⩽20 g per day", so I have edited it accordingly. TiffaF (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

A closer examinations of the reference reveals that "20g" refers to pure alcohol basis (which makes much more sense, as 5 fluid ounces of wine contains roughly (usually just-under) 20g of alcohol). But what's important is that we got those damn Americanisms off the article; who cares if it was made significantly less accurate in doing so. (I'm so glad the English never used the British Imperial units system with those bloody awful "ounces" and whatnot). Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT) 21:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's certainly "significantly less accurate". It appears to confuse ABV with weight fraction. They aren't the same thing. 13% ABV isn't the same as 13% weight because the densities of alcohol and water are different (ethyl alcohol is 0.7851 the density of water). So 20g of alcohol would be present in about 120ml of wine, not 180 as shown in the article.

It's unfortunate indeed that the United States inherited those British units and then grew too big to change them. At least in the wine industry here, everything is expressed in milliliters as it should be. And American scientists abandoned Imperial units several decades ago. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Right. Except, under your analysis, I would have put (20/.13 = 150g) ~150ml. I'm no chemist, or an oenophile, and definitely not a precisionist, but I knew the conversion factor listed in Alcohol_by_volume#Proof_and_alcohol_by_weight (though clearly not basic algebra: (5/4)*(20/.13) instead of (4/5)*(20/.13); thanks for catching that). Of course, 180ml is closer to the mark than the "20ml" that was there for months. Your last paragraph is spot on, I was simply responding to the previous posters ridiculous comment (about Imperial unites being a purely US phenomenon) with an illustratively ridiculous comment. One thing still bothers me: does your learned calculation account for the fact that mixtures of ethanol and water have less volume than the sum of their individual components volumes? Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT) 02:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Wholesale deletions

There have been two deletions lately of the same content but for different reasons. Portions of the first paragraph and all of the second paragraph have been deleted because they either were "undue bits" or because of a "contradicted cited source." As there are four citations, it is unclear which is contradictory. Looking at the first page of Encyclopedia Britannica's Wine and its subsection Fruit wines, this source is not contradicted. Barley wine discusses barley wine, but it does not include information about ginger or rice wine. As such additional citations would be needed to cover the rest of the information. The Simon & Schuster Pocket Wine Label Decoder and Vintage: The Story of Wine. Simon & Schuster are inaccessible to me, thus I cannot confirm the veracity of the article's statements. Any insight on this? Cheers! Encycloshave (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I have Vintage and can verify any info. What part was that pertaining to? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing the the pages are a typo—"pp. 11-6"—perhaps somewhere between pp. 6 and 11. The article content is, "The natural chemical balance of grapes lets them ferment without the addition of sugars, acids, enzymes, or other nutrients."Encycloshave (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, it may take a while. There is some minor edit warring going on at Champagne that is taken my attention. Two editors after only a couple days of discussions wants to hammer in their "two person" consensus into the article. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

As Wran has chosen not discuss edits, I have elevated the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encycloshave (talk • contribs) 15:07, 5 May 2012‎ (UTC)

Sorry about the delay. I had a family member taken ill by a brown recluse spider bite and most of yesterday was spent at the hospital dealing with that nastiness. :( But I looked into the matter and the reference citation looked familiar and I realized it was because I added it back in 2007 for some information that was already present in the article. (My ref was for pages 11-16, somewhere along the way the 11-6 popped up) I looked further and found the source of the original line was from a 2006 edit from a user who is no longer around. Now looking at Vintage, I believe the reason why I used this reference was because of passages like this on pg 11 and the several other instances from there to pg 16 where Johnson talks about how wine can be made without virtually any interference from man--just crushed grapes in a seal jar is enough to ferment to wine, etc. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

note 1 refers to article, first defining sentence of which is "wine, the fermented juice of the grape": so source was obviously contradicted by ignorant rewriteWran (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

If you care to review the full article that is cited, you will see that it does discuss fruit wines in the fruit wine subsection. As this article is merely titled "Wine," as is the one at Britannica, it is fitting that at least a small bit of attention be paid to wine in the broader sense, regardless of the source, i.e. other fruits, rice, honey, etc. In addition, there is a link to fruit wines, and the rest of the article is dedicated to the history, production, trade, consumption, etc of wine made from grapes. I would however, suggest improving the hatnote and adding a link to fruit wines in the disambiguation. Encycloshave (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Wran, you need to read WP:BRD. It is only now that you talk on this page, after refusing to engage at the ANI page. At this stage, your edits look like warring, which will get you blocked if it continues. I suggest talking about the issue on this page before making your changes in the lede of the article again, as there is yet to be a consensus on your viewpoint. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • your comment is a lie: I never refused anything and rather was the first to say that discussion should have preceded the unjustified deletion of my clearly correct contribution: YOU need to try reading what I wrote, which you "refused" to respond to (Wran (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
    • You do realize that your comments can be viewed as a personal attack, do you not? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Wran, this combative attitude is less than productive, to put it mildly. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I've struck the personal attack, and it seems Amatulic saw fit to block Wran for WP:WARRING here [10]. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Terroir specialist

I noticed this in the professions list. It sounds interesting and would probably make for a good article, but I haven't been able to find much on it. All I have dug up are two consultant wine makers who refer to themselves as terror specialists, but does that count as a "profession?" Even the description seems a bit off, as "academic" is a professor by profession. It was added in March 2010 by IP 41.241.161.7. http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois/?ip=41.241.161.7 didn't provide any insight as to who this was. Encycloshave (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Garagiste

In the Professions section, I see...

• "Garagiste: An amateur wine maker, or a derogatory term used for small scale operations of recent inception, usually without pedigree and located in Bordeaux.

That doesn't sound like a profession to me - amateur winemaking is not a profession, and derogatory terms are not valid names for professions. The article Garagistes describes it...

• The garagistes refers to a group of innovative winemakers in the Bordeaux region, producing "Vins de garage", "Garage wine"

Again, that's not a profession - it's a name for a specific group of winemakers. I'm going to remove it from the list, but if anyone believes it is a genuine profession, please shout. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought about that one as well when raising the issue of terroir specialist. It's redundant. I say nix it. Encycloshave (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Indian wine is not mentioned

Wine production and export business on a boom in India however no mention here.

Indian wine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.119.104.226 (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Confusion about fruit wines

So apple wine redirects to apfelwein, which it says is a synonym for cider. apple wine is given as an example of a fruit wine. The fruit wine page says cider is excluded from the definition of a fruit wine. something's funky, guys, and i'm not a wine expert. romnempire (talk) 04:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

What's funky is that grapes are the only fermentable in the first sentence. Fruit wines, meads, and cider ARE indeed wine and the misconception that grapes are the only show in town, perpetuated by multiple wikipedia articles needs to be addressed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:151D:64E8:2843:6E7C:9CD:7202 (talk) 01:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Forgery and manipulation of wines

The section on forgery and manipulation of wines contains incorrect information about the Czech Republic 2012 methanol crysis. Neither of the two references (http://www.eurotopics.net/en/home/presseschau/archiv/results/archiv_article/ARTICLE111201-The-fatal-greed-of-alcohol-adulterators and http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_09_17/20-dead-from-counterfeit-alcohol-in-Czech-Republic/) says anything about wine being the problematic beverage. The first link mentions wine a few times, but not once in connection with the 2012 crysis - "In Ancient Greece and Rome, wine was stretched with water", "But even in Austria there was a scandal a few years back involving wine that had been adulterated with anti-freeze substances." (Austria is not in the Czech Republic, and it isn't related to the 2012 crysis at all). The second article even explicitly states that the government has forbidden the sale of alcoholic beverages with more than 20% alcoholic content (which excludes pretty much all the wines on the market). The crysis was connected to hard liquor, not beer or wine. When I tried to point out this misinformation, my change has been reverted (based on the fact that the first link does say the crysis was about wine fraud, while it does not). I am confident the (incorrect) example should be removed altogether, unless backed with references that actually confirm it. Anyone?

Luaan256 (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the cited references do not support the statement, and do indeed indicate that it was not wine that was involved. So I have removed the statement. Deli nk (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Confusing reference to alcohol content

"The term wine can also refer to the higher alcohol content of starch-fermented or fortified beverages such as barley wine or sake."

Surely 'wine' does not refer to the alcohol content but instead to the drink itself? Should it be something like:

"The term wine can also refer to starch-fermented or fortified beverages with a higher alcohol content, such as barley wine or sake."

('higher' seems vague, but I suspect that just reflects the imprecision of the definition of wine.) 173.172.95.186 (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. You are welcome to make such improvements yourself. I'll correct this one. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Good point, I will strive for boldness. ;) 173.172.95.186 (talk) 08:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Definition incomplete?

The first sentence is "Wine is an alcoholic beverage made from fermented grapes or other fruits.", but later examples talk about wines made from leaves, sap, flowers, herbs, spices, and so on. These other examples contradict the leading definition: either they are not wines, or the leading definition is too narrow. 173.172.95.186 (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I suspect it means wine can be flavored with flowers, leaves, herbs, etc. but it isn't actually made just from those ingredients. Sugar is required to make wine, and flowers and spices generally don't contain any sugars.

In any case, I removed that sentence because it doesn't comply with WP:LEAD. Any sentence in the lead section should serve to provide an overview of something in the body of the article, and that sentence was an orphan with no corresponding piece in the body. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense - thanks for the touch-up. 173.172.95.186 (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your vigilance. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The leading sentence has since been edited to be even more narrow. Now it only says grapes. It is absolutely important that fruit wines and meads be included in the most basic definition of wine. Here is how the TTB defines wine and I believe tis article should follow this example:

″When used without qualification, the term includes every class and type of product, produced on a bonded wine premises, from grapes, other fruit (including berries), or other suitable agricultural products. See 27 CFR 24.10.″ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:151D:64E8:2843:6E7C:9CD:7202 (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Obscure and broken reference (link)

I have deleted an obscure (and broken) link, and reverted to the traditional, and widely cited view that the origin of is in the region of Iran. This is fairly well established through genetics and archaeology, so please include multiple sources to suggest any alternative *(and pet) theories. The inclusion of a single arcane source (via a bad link, at that), will only result in constant revisions. Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.16.113.3 (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.16.113.3 (talk)

I was able to trace the information from the corrupt link that has been included, and it actually provides very little to promote the Georgian hypothesis. In fact, that research, by Patrick Mcgovern and Jose Vouillamoz, suggests South Eastern Anatolia as the origin of wine making, although they make it very clear that they cannot rule out (due to lack of sampling) Iran and Trans-Caucasia, as the source of origin of wine-making. Furthermore, on his Penn Museum webpage, Mcgovern notes, "The earliest chemically attested grape wine in the world was discovered by my laboratory at Hajji Firuz in the northwestern Zagros Mountains of Iran, ca. 5400 B.C. (Early Neolithic Period)". However, he concludes with, "The upland areas of the Caucasus, Taurus, and Zagros Mountains are all possibilities for the earliest domestication and the beginning of winemaking. What especially makes me think that the origins of viniculture may be found here is that there is a great deal of archaeological and historical evidence for what can be called a “wine culture” gradually radiating out in time and space, from small beginnings in the northern mountains of the Near East in the Neolithic, to become a dominant economic, religious and social force throughout the region and later across Europe in the millennia to follow". - So basically, the editor for this page, is using a fake (intentionally broken) link, in order to support his Georgian hypothesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zadeh79 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

My only comment here is similar to what I said at ANI. Please discuss first, don't edit war. Also don't make unsupported allegations about other editors, in other words don't make personal attacks, be civil and assume good faith. If you continue to have problems reaching consensus, please use some method of WP:Dispute resolution. Also I strongly suggest you start to use edit summaries. Nil Einne (talk) 08:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

There is little to contemplate through discussions. The editor(s) here are using fake references and apparently, nobody at Wikipedia cares. For god sake, just click on the links that are provided and you will see for yourself that one of the links that are constantly being used to support a 'Georgian hypothesis' is broken, the other link is simply in contrast to the Georgian hypothesis (suggesting an iranian origin). The article that is being referred to via the broken link, draws the conclusion that winemaking may have originated in South Eastern Turkey (ref link 2) - although the authors did not rule out Georgia, Armenia , or NW Iran, because lack of sampling. This study provides little to nothing, which justifies the assertion that winemaking has a Georgian origin. The Georgian idea is completely untraceable, as it is a random figment of some editors imagination. Yes, there shouldn't be an 'edit war', because someone at Wiki should be responsible enough to put a stop to the countless , unjustified edits of the Wine page editors. And if you don't have the decency to respect my rational argument, then I am not open to your 'suggestion'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.196.88.228 (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You keep talking about a 'fake' reference but don't seem to have provided any evidence for this claim. If you're not going to provide any evidence, then you're correct there's nothing to discuss. The first reference lead to a dead link which has now been fixed, something which you could have done yourself since you suggested you found a working copy of the link. Alternatively you cold have used an appropriate tag like {{deadlink}}. Note that the fix is to an archive.org archive of the exact same URL formerly used in the article suggesting it did work at one time most likely including when it was added, and that even with the dead link, there was likely sufficient information to track down the reference even if archive.org didn't work. The second link always worked as you yourself seem to allude to. The third reference is to a book which I can see in numerous catalogs and even see a preview of in Google Books so is unlikely to be fake. While you're free to ignore my advice as an uninvolved observed, bear in my you've already been blocked once, and you've had absolutely no replies to this thread besides me perhaps partially because many people are not even aware it exists because in all your edit wars you didn't once mention you tried to explain your edits here (in addition to the other problems likely discouraging people from reply like the unsupported accusations of wrong doing. Ultimately wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopaedia not somewhere where a 'responsible person' makes a decision about what to include, and if you don't learn to collobrate you aren't likely to get far. Nil Einne (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

BTW, do you realise you were edit warring over the WP:LEAD which is mostly supposed to summarise what is in the article? And that the article itself, at least in you first edits (I did not look over the later edits made with the account) was unchanged and continued to make the Georgia claim. In fact as the guideline says, stuff covered in the lead doesn't always meed references since these should be in the article, I'm guessing a reason they are included here is because as this talk page suggests this is probably a bit of a hot button issue. Nil Einne (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The link to the page that is currently being used, does not rely on a valid source that is supportive of it's assertions. You can trace the information from the corrupt link that has been repaired (relating to Patrick Mcgovern's research), and it actually provides almost nothing to promote the Georgian hypothesis. The research, conducted by Patrick Mcgovern and Jose Vouillamoz, clearly suggests South Eastern Anatolia as the origin of wine making, although they make the point that they cannot rule out (due to lack of sampling) Iran and Trans-Caucasia, as the source of origin of wine-making. On his Penn Museum webpage, Mcgovern notes, "The earliest chemically attested grape wine in the world was discovered by my laboratory at Hajji Firuz in the northwestern Zagros Mountains of Iran, ca. 5400 B.C. (Early Neolithic Period)". However, he concludes with, "The upland areas of the Caucasus, Taurus, and Zagros Mountains are all possibilities for the earliest domestication and the beginning of winemaking. So their is no Georgian hypothesis. McGovern never said Georgia was the origin of wine-making - The link, which has finally been repaired, relies on an obscure source that, in turn, provides an untraceable notion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.16.113.3 (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

https://www.penn.museum/sites/wine/wineneolithic.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/03/world/africa/iran-finds-7000yearold-liquor-habit-is-tough-to-break.html http://archive.archaeology.org/9609/newsbriefs/wine.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:C0C3:500:1573:3E2:BC95:9A9D (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Freezing?

At what temperature does wine freeze?: [11] Should it be frozen?: [12], etc etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

"fermented grapes"

This phrase in the first sentence seems odd to me. Surely it's made from the fermented juice of grapes? The German article, for example, says "aus dem vergorenen Saft von Weintrauben" (from the fermented juice of grapes). Whole grapes are around at the outset, but are eliminated quickly: you don't expect bits of fermented grape in your wine. Andrew Dalby 17:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

That would probably be more accurate these days. However....

If you've ever watched wine being made, the grapes are first crushed into something called must. Nothing is thrown away, the whole grapes are still there, just mangled up, and left to ferment in that state, if the winemaker chooses to use wild yeast fermentation. If the winemaker doesn't want to risk the outcome of wild yeast, the juice is extracted and inoculated with more predictable yeast for fermentation in barrels.

Because wild yeast grows naturally on grape skin, I would say for that wine was made from fermented grapes (not just the juice) for thousands of years, and the practice of inoculating the juice with other yeast is relatively recent. (In my opinion, wild yeast fermentation produces better, more complex wine.) ~Amatulić (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I have more experience with cider myself ... It's true that the wild yeasts are on the skin (whether we're talking about apples or grapes) but I'd still argue that it's the juice, by fermenting, that yields your eventual alcoholic beverage. Still, I must admit that the French article says the same as the English, so this is evidently a reasonable way of expressing it. OK :) Andrew Dalby 18:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Source misinterpretation

In the begining of the history section following content is found: An extensive gene-mapping project in 2006 analyzed the heritage of more than 110 modern grape cultivars, narrowing their origin to a region of Georgia. It references to the following source: http://web.archive.org/web/20111005120059/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/now-thats-what-you-call-a-real-vintage-professor-unearths-8000yearold-wine-577863.html The source article solely mentions about an 8000 year old wine pottery found in Georgia. There is nothing about gene-mapping project to be found there nor the origin of modern grape cultivars. Hence, the content is clear misinterpretetion of the source and should be deleted.--Hayordi (talk) 09:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The claim seems too specific to be completely missing from the cited source. It is quite possible that there was another source for that claim, which got lost. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

There is literally nothing mentioned about extensive gene-mapping project in the source. Previous revisions do not have any other sources either, wich you speculate might have got lost.--Hayordi (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is a 2006 paper [13], but there is no mention mention of Georgia in the abstract. Georgia is mentioned once in the full text. Perhaps it might be better to summarise this paper? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I've read this article in Nature magazine a while ago. The article is indeed about gene-mapping project, but has nothin with Georgia, nor the estblishment of the origins of grape cultivars to do. If you google some more, you'll find also other gene-mapping projects (e.g. in 2010). Most of them mention parts of continents when refering to grape cultivars (e.g north-afrika, south-europe, caucasus). But non of them is trying to narrow it down to a small region of tiny country.It's beyond the absurd...--Hayordi (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot fishy about the claim of an 8000 year wine-making history in Georgia. Not one of the plethora of articles that make the claim, reference any researchable study. It looks like a big hoax. The article needs to revert to a Persian or Armenian source for wine, both which are verifiably sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.154.56.136 (talk • contribs)

WP:OR EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

radiation

what causes wine to go bad I think it has to do with the glass bottle kind of like plastic leaches into food. but is there a medical use for bad wine. I thing it can be used to treat radiation poisoning >>>>> what's the catch once you drink it you must add water back into the bottle and seal it up for 10,000 years and then the radio active water inside with be safe to drink//// symbolism^%urName (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Whats inside the light bulb?: This page is not a forum for discussion about the topic, but rather this page is for discussion about improving the article. If you have a question to ask about medical uses of spoiled wine and radiation treatments, please ask it at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, 10,000 years that should do it. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

First paragraph edit

"There is a large range of price and quality levels; the least expensive table wines cost US$3 for a bottle and "fine wines" may cost US$30–50 for a bottle. "

This was the final sentence in the first paragraph. I have removed it as it is entirely US-centric. A cheap bottle of wine may be purchased for that price in the US, but you can get it cheaper in most other countries. Also, in some countries the cheapest bottle is way above that limit. Thirdly, the sentence did not specify in which country those prices applied. Finally, as an opening paragraph, any sentences in that paragraph should be about describing the subject in question, i.e. what the subject is, a brief outline in how it's made, etc. A sentence on the pricing structure for wine in one or two countries (neither of which are even traditional growers of wine) combined with the links which, to me, seemed like blatant advertising, is not appropriate for an opening paragraph. ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 13:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Citation for health benefits of polyphenols

In the health effects section I read: "Additionally, some studies have found a greater correlation of health benefits with red than white wine, though other studies have found no difference. Red wine contains more polyphenols than white wine, and these could be protective against cardiovascular disease.[106]".

Reference [106] points to this this paper, and the abstract concludes with "...it is not currently possible to define the role of wine in human health". I am not sure in this case that reference [106] supports the claim in the article, even that it "could". The abstract of the paper suggests that it is not yet known if wine is good for health or not, so we should not be using "could" here - that's just speculation. RevenDS (talk) 11:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with revenDS there is no support to claim according to this article. Aarden1011Aarden1011 (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC) Aarden1011 (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

9,100 year old Chinese "wine"

I checked the source for the claim, an article at about.com, and found that A) it wasn't written by an acknowledged expert in the field, and B) the sources given in that article say that the fermented beverage on the clay fragment was either made from "rice and millet" (one source), or made from "rice, honey and fruit" (the other sources), with none of the sources saying that the fermented beverage was made from grapes. So I have removed the claim in the article that "The earliest form of grape-based fermented drink was found in northern China, where archaeologists discovered 9000-year-old pottery jars,". Thomas.W ^talk 00:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The fact that the Chinese adapted their word for distilled spirits to include grape wine (jiu), suggests that grape wine is a relatively recent concept in China compared to Europe. And I wouldn't consider about.com to be a reliable source. It has some reliable writers, but pretty much anyone can become a writer for about.com; it's more or less user-generated content. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. It's funny how the Wikipedia page for Tea makes clear that tea should be from tea leaves (ie genus Camellia..), and that a "tea" made with other leaves, fruit, flowers is just an "infusion" but somehow alcohol made from things other than grapes can be called wine. As stated above, this claim of "wine" in China is simply because some people would like an easy, direct, non-nuanced translation for the Chinese word "jiu" (酒). But this word certainly means alcoholic drink. Wine is putaojiu. So... why should there be mention of "a similar alcoholic drink" from China in the "History" section of this article? Spettro9 (talk) 09:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Big Gaps in Article

This article says little about the winemaking process and nothing about the differences between red, white and rose wines. Stub Mandrel (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Stub Mandrel: excellent suggestion. I just added new sections for red, white, and rose wines with links to the corresponding main articles on those subjects. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Excellent, cheers! Stub Mandrel (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I added a section on mead as well. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

China

Recently, someone inserted a claim that the earliest-known wine was found in China. Unfortunately, the cited source refers only to "wine-like drinks from rice, honey and fruit". Although rice-derived "wine-like" drinks may be mentioned in the history section, I don't think it's accurate to describe them as the earliest known "wine" in the sense that this article describes it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.121.215 (talk) 23:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

is wine just made from grapes?

The first sentence of the lead says "made from grapes" without other options. The second paragraph says wine can be made from other matter. Should the first sentence have the word "generally"? Or should the second paragraph say "the word 'wine' is also used more generally for beverages made from other matter"? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

most of wines yes!. LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

there many confusion with the article on the lists of wine production and consumption, there any new source about this? , instead to add 100 listes , why dont add only two or one?. LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Wine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150906230329/http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=567 to http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=567
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110520105103/http://faostat.fao.org/site/636/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=636 to http://faostat.fao.org/site/636/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=636
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130509103442/http://torah.org/features/holydays/passover/pesacheat.html to http://www.torah.org/features/holydays/passover/pesacheat.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828140517/http://www.sytu.edu.cn/zhgjiu/u5-2.htm to http://www.sytu.edu.cn/zhgjiu/u5-2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110516070021/http://www2.ulg.ac.be/archgrec/IMG/aegeum/aegaeum12%28pdf%29/Palaima.pdf to http://www2.ulg.ac.be/archgrec/IMG/aegeum/aegaeum12%28pdf%29/Palaima.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

A case of "In itself right, but" (re: Wine and morality)

There remains an ongoing debate between some American Protestant denominations as to whether wine can and should be used for the Eucharist or allowed as an ordinary beverage, with Catholics and some mainline Protestants allowing wine drinking in moderation, and some conservative Protestant groups opposing consumption of alcohol altogether.

This is, of course, true as it stands. However, I have the impression that the average reader will get the impression "some say not at all, some say a tiny sip here and there" - which would not accurately describe at least the general Catholic stand. Of course, Catholics do say "in moderation". However, first, "moderation" is a virtue that everything must be subjected to in any case, not only alcohol consumption. Second, "moderation" issues practically always mean "difficult to give fix boundaries in concrete terms" (this is not the case with every virtue, but here). Third, a very rough explanation of what moderation does mean would be "first, totally avoiding utter drunkenness, defined as the point where free-will is no longer present", and then some other thoughts, most of which are as applicable to wine as they are to roast-beef (money, for instance). It is perfectly imaginable that a faithful Catholic regularly enters a state usually described as "tipsy" without breaking his moderation duties at all -

and I have some doubt whether that would come across the way it is formulated now. Any suggestions to do it in a better manner? I haven't, right now, or I'll edit myself.--2001:A61:20F5:2B01:20F5:4773:8583:21E6 (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Wine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130928111625/http://www.practicalwinery.com/janfeb09/page1.htm to http://www.practicalwinery.com/janfeb09/page1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140102200621/http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1102&MainCatID=11&id=20101224000156 to http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1102&MainCatID=11&id=20101224000156
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090708100910/http://www.maridajesgourmet.com/vinos/vino/vinocuidadovino/temperatura.html to http://www.maridajesgourmet.com/vinos/vino/vinocuidadovino/temperatura.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402080332/http://eh.net/book_reviews/creating-wine-emergence-world-industry-1840-1914 to http://eh.net/book_reviews/creating-wine-emergence-world-industry-1840-1914

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Wine and mortality

The article contains assertions that moderate wine consumption conveys health benefits, citing primary sources. This assertion of health benefits contradicts high-quality secondary sources and large epidemiologic studies. I am removing the "J curve" paragraph. It contradicts other information in this article that is supported by high-quality secondary sources. Sbelknap (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Is recent news relevant? Not that Wikipedia treats all "alcohol" in a coherent way, I guess. And not that there might be counter-evidence with regard to wine specificlaly, that may have been lost in such a large-scale global study. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The current text cites low-quality evidence, mostly from primary sources, and mentions a J-point curve, where moderate ethanol consumption gives health advantages over abstinence. This has been known to be erroneous for some time to experts in the field. Recently, a high-quality secondary source has become available, and this deprecates much of the existing text in the current version of the article. Sbelknap (talk) 03:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

A systematic analysis of data from the Global Burden of Disease Study, which was an observational study, found that long term consumption of any amount of alcohol is associated with an increased of risk of death in all people, and that even moderate conception appears to be risky. Similar to prior analyses, it found an apparent benefit for older women in reducing the risks of death from ischemic heart disease and from diabetes, but unlike prior studies it found those risks cancelled by an apparent increased risk of death from breast cancer and other causes. A 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis found that moderate ethanol consumption brought no mortality benefit compared with lifetime abstention from ethanol consumption. Sbelknap (talk) 03:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

References

I have no objection to updating the article to reflect these more recent (and more valid) studies. I say go for it. ~Anachronist (talk) 08:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree. I guess the text here should match whatever is presented at Health effects of wine. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Missing

Alcohol and its role in the preservation of grape juice. Fermentation and its role in preservation with alchohol as a byproduct. -Inowen (nlfte) 01:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2018

first wine was found in country Georgia (sakartvelo) 8000 BC 64.113.187.34 (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Where's your source for that claim? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. Please make a precise request about what you want to change and provide reliable sources to back up any claims. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

And that is why the article is protected: it was subject to frequent disruption by anons trying to add this very factoid without evidence. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Add wikipedia link to "Trans-Caucasia" in Etymology

What the title says. Link to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.109.105.245 (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

House wine listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect House wine. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

False information on "Map showing the word for wine in European languages"

Nobody (<<5%) in Florina (northern Greece) says "vino". This information was just assumed because of the misleading and confusing map "Simplified Languages of Europe map.svg" which in its description says "In some cases, the area indicated for a language reflects where some of its speakers live but not necessarily where they form the majority of the population.". It is like marking whole Germany as using the word krasi just because there are some Greek speaking people living in Germany, or marking whole Greece as using Wine (???)... In any case, this information is wrong. If I'd know how, i'd correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0A:A546:199:0:F4EF:E4AF:D5DC:4DF0 (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that at least one person in Florina may have uttered the word "vino" since you added your comment above. But that's just my guess, of course. The map is this one. It's not clear tome if that area of the map you seem to be referring to equates to Florina or not. Is the essential difference here between Greece and Macedonia? There is only so much detail that can be shown on a map of such a large area. But I'm sure you are welcome to make suggestions for improvement at the Talk page for that image over in Commons. Or even directly to the creator User:PiMaster3, although they do not seem to have edited at Wikipedia since November 2019 (more active in Commons). Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead section

The recent additions to the lead section are very welcome, especially if they re accompanied by citations. But, as with most articles, the lead section is meant to summarize the entire article and should have nothing that is not present, with supporting sources, in the article main body. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Pochacsher zabegayte v "1/3-kovku" .. ))) ..

"Хорошая картина" - как "хорошее вино". Может жизни не хватить .. Бывает.

В.В. однажды написал - "Хлебаю борщ. А душа - болит .. ?? ))) .. 176.59.208.219 (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Fantasy viking winemaker in the Americas

The text introduces several times the idea that the vikings made wine in the Americas, an idea which doesn't make any sense because they only arrived briefly into a very limited area very far in the North. On the article's beginning there is this sentence: "New World wine has some connection to alcoholic beverages made by the indigenous peoples of the Americas, but is mainly connected to later Viking area of Vinland and Spanish traditions in New Spain.[8][9]" which is only supported by a reference about "vinland" that does not contain any reference to winemaking, neither for Vikings nor American indigenous peoples. On "History" there is another link to "Vinland: The Mystical Legend of “The Land of Grapes”" that talks about legendary sagas and not about anything that has been archeologically or historically proved, as in the previous paragraphs. I would suggest that the first made up statement should be deleted and, for the second one its content should be corrected to what the referenced article actually says. --Beengorge (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Less Wine

Is there a type of wine known as 'Less Wine'. I thought I heard it being mentioned at a conference that I attended. The butler said something about wanting to try less wine. The person sitting beside me said that she has had it on holidays and that it was amazing. 2A00:23CC:4D88:2701:65CE:C2D6:4B85:52AB (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I drink less wine whenever I visit the Middle East. Sneftel (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Etymology

The article says Georgian word "ghvino" is related to "vine":

Georgian ღვინო, "ghvino" or "(grape) vine", itself derived from the Proto-Indo-European stem *win-o-

But there is no such word in Georgian for the plant; it just describes the drink. Phonetically closest one is "ვენახი", "ven-a-khi", which means vineyard, but I'm not sure if there's a connection there. Vine (plant) itself doesn't have a single word in Georgian. — 185.70.53.122 (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Filipino

Wine 222.127.169.38 (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2023

2601:644:4800:2A0:DD5A:7C08:A488:175D (talk) 06:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

{Wine is for weddings, so most people use Ubers to drive home}

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2024

The country of origin of wine listed on this Wikipedia page is listed as Georgia, however the oldest winery ever discovered is in the neighboring country of Armenia (see the following National Geographic article: ). Please change the country of origin of wine from Georgia to Armenia. 47.232.166.242 (talk) 09:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey, IP, I see that the headline there indicates this, but the source is behind a paywall for me. Can you give me the relevant quote? Valereee (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done NM, found it. That's a 2011 article; the support for Georgia is a 2017 article. Valereee (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I see we have Areni-1 winery, which says "The winery ... is believed to be at least a thousand years older than the winery unearthed in the West Bank in 1963, which is the second oldest currently known." So that might need to be corrected. But I also note that Armenian wine says: "Armenia is one of the oldest wine producing regions of the world. In particular, the oldest known winery was found in Armenia's Areni region (see Areni-1 winery), which to this day is still known of its wine production and endemic grapes." So likewise, currently in contradiction. There seems to be a distinction between "oldest wine producing regions" and "oldest winery"? Just sayin'. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it's all a bit confusing. Confused further by the need to do math. :) I'm thinking a very recent scholarly work is what we need to be looking for? Valereee (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Also...any idea how to fix the archiving here? Valereee (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry not my strong subject (what is, lol). But User:Ritchie333 might be able to help? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the most recent scholarly article ought to solve all (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Misleading and selective sources

One user keeps inserting questionable source information to support claim of oldest wine being from Syria. You can tell by the URL that this is cherry picking - they just went and typed specific keywords to prove what they themselves believe. This source is not appropriate. It's medical book on hepatology that mentions wine origins only in passing. Even then it talking about discovery of "grape seed", which may or may not be evidence of wine. In any case, people who study medicine and liver functions cannot be taken as experts on history or archeology. Same user in the past added website of a private equipment manufacturing business, which is not WP:RS. LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 03:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I would've appreciated it if you had tagged.

Why did you not mention the other source i added The Atlas of Germany? Published by the University of California? It states that the oldest evidence of winemaking was found near Damascus. Did you not read it? if yes then why did you remove it? Whatsupkarren (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

German book mentions in passing that "A fruit and grape press" was found near Damascus and presents zero evidence this press was used to make wine and not some other beverage. It even start in saying "It is not known when the first vineyards were planted or when their grapes were turned into wine". In any case these are obscure resources that mention your cherry pick information only in passing. Someone who talks about modern winemaking in Germany and only mentions prehistoric stuff in passing cannot be taken as archeological expert on the matter of wine findings in Syria, just as hepatologist that talks about liver medicine you cited and mentions origins of wine in passing is not sufficient.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

But even more important than your misleading sourcing is that your edits are clearly driving "agenda". You already decide for yourself that you want to highlight Syria at any cost, so you scour information everywhere with reverse searches to try to find some shreds of information to support this, even if you have to scrape bottom of the barrel and cite medical books, etc. That is the main problem and it also creates false balance.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you might be projecting, you refused to discuss on talk page for a while and just kep removing my edits calling my sources unreliable.

even if my sources (1) published by university of California press and (2) Springer an international publisher and is a quite reliable source mention that fact in passing, does that just mean the fact is wrong?

I think we can rephrase the section in a better way to include the fact the the one of the oldest evidence of winemaking was found in Damascus.

I'd like to ask for some 3 opinions on whether my sources can be used or not Whatsupkarren (talk) 09:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@LeontinaVarlamonva You also called my sources old, well, they're not older than some of the sources used in this article. The Wine Atlas of Germany was published in 2014!!! Newr than the sources used for Iran's wine history, one of them dating to 1996, the other 2012. Whatsupkarren (talk) 09:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Publisher reputation has little to do with whether individual work/expert is qualified to make archeological claims in areas outside of what they understand, especially when they just mention something in passing. When a non-expert mention something in passing, and you elevate that on same level as all other information, that creates false balance.

Rules on this site clearly say "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source or information that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable". And that is exactly what your contributions did when you use medical book to support archeological claims, or when you cite modern German winemaker to back questionable archeological information from thousands of years ago in Syria they only mention in passing.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)