From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Wine (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of wines, grapes, winemaking and wine-producing regions on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article is a nominee to be the Wine Improvement Drive subject. Please comment on the nomination.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Food and drink (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 / Vital
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
This article has an assessment summary page.
e·h·w·Stock post message.svg To-do:
  • Add summary section on winemaking
  • Shorten long sections by summarising or splitting them
  • Reduce number of sections to clean up TOC
  • Add more inline citations
  • Add more images

Wine to FA by end of the year?[edit]

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[edit]

  • 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) 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[edit]

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

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

Health Effects[edit]

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 [1] 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)


Removed a rather tall claim about wine being made "for thousands of years" based on "some Vedic scripture" [2], as it is based on a website, 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[edit]

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 (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. [3] 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 [4] and [5], 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)

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 (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Wine vs beer consumption - ambiguous and irrelevant?[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Potential references[edit]

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

La Sicilia del Vino[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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? AgneCheese/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. AgneCheese/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 (talkcontribs) 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. AgneCheese/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 - © 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)

Terroir specialist[edit]

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 didn't provide any insight as to who this was. Encycloshave (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


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[edit]

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

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

Confusion about fruit wines[edit]

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)

Forgery and manipulation of wines[edit]

The section on forgery and manipulation of wines contains incorrect information about the Czech Republic 2012 methanol crysis. Neither of the two references ( and 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[edit]

"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.) (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. ;) (talk) 08:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Definition incomplete?[edit]

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. (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. (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your vigilance. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Obscure and broken reference (link)[edit]

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 (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (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 (talkcontribs) 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 (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 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 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 (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


At what temperature does wine freeze?: [7] Should it be frozen?: [8], etc etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

"fermented grapes"[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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: 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 [9], 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 (talkcontribs)

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


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)