This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics 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.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan articles
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.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Photo request: Just about all of them! Any pictures of wine regions, grape varieties or wine would be useful. In particular we need wine region maps that can be licensed for Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany 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.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Aram-van, the grape variety is indigenous to Azerbaijani region of Shamakhi. It was then shipped for growing to other regions such as Armenia, Central Asia, etc. The fact that it exists in the other regions is already (!) stated in the article. I am not sure why you continue your disruptive editing. Tuscumbia (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I fail to understand as well. The text that Agne27 has added already states the grape variety can be found also in Armenia, but Aram-van keeps edit-warring for no reason whatsoever. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tuscumbia removed a fact that had a citation which stated that this grape is a TRADITIONAL variety (i.e. originating before the 19th-century) and thus CANNOT be assigned a "nationality", and he also removed the name by which this grape is known by Armenian growers.Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, first off, "Traditional variety" is a WP:NEO term and so is not appropriate in the lead in. If your ref describes it as a "traditional variety in Armenia that was planted before the 19th century", then that would be appropriate to use in description of the grape in relation to Armenia. Second, grapes are usually classified by their origins (see first line in grape articles like Sangiovese). The only exception is for International varieties and grapes where their origins might be disputed (or articles that haven't been clean up yet and standardize). I don't think that is the case here plus WP:RS such as The Oxford Companion to Wine (which has no dog in any ethnic fights) plainly describe this grape as a Azerbaijani grape. Now I do think the common synonym that it is known at in Armenia should be included so I will edit the article accordingly to move the the neologism to a more appropriate place with ref and to restore its description. AgneCheese/Wine20:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update I've tried to institute a compromise edit that I would hope have addressed all the concerns. We have the Armenia synonym and also the traditional variety description as Scribble explained it and with the source he provided. We maintained the origins description, since that is common practice in wine grape article and also the way the grape is described by neutral reliable sources. The origins don't appear to be disputed according to the sources that Tuscumbia used in the article. Now, if this compromise is still not agreeable, I kindly ask that we discuss the matter here rather than revert. AgneCheese/Wine21:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits are not acceptable, I see nothing in them that amounts to a compromise and I question your assumption that there is an issue here that requires a compromise. Lack of attention is revealed in your deletion of a correct wikilink and its replacement by an obsolete one: there is no article named "Armenia (wine)". Your wording "In Armenia, the grape is considered a "traditional variety" that has been planted in the region since at least the 19th century." is POV, OR, and weasel (quite a feat to cram all that into one sentence). It is OR because only YOU are stating this "in Armenia it is considered" claim. It is POV because it is worded to imply there are sources saying that it is not a traditional variety in Armenia (as well as being OR since you have no source to back that implication), and it is weasel in its use of inverted commas - placing a claim in inverted comas is a well-known way to indicate that what someone is claiming is probably untrue. In what what is the term "traditional variety" a neologisms? Thousands of different plants species that are cultivated for food have varieties that are called "traditional varieties", and it normally means they have been grown before today's era of mass production and selective cultivation to breed modern varieties. The source I cited gives a long list of grape varieties that are cultivated in Armenia. Madrasi is in a list of about 100 grape names titled "Armenian grape varieties in the XIX century", there is a second list titled "Modern grape varieties". Based on that, the grape should also be described as an Armenian wine grape variety. It is not acceptable to give a modern nationality to a plant variety that has been cultivated for centuries. The believed origin was stated, the village of Madrasa, along with the current location of that village. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agne, I have removed your edit for the reasons stated - it had POV, OR, weasel words, and an incorrect wikilink. As it stood, it could not remain. If you can suggest an alternative wording for "traditional variety" then please do so, and we can discuss that. However, I think the meaning is perfectly clear to a casual reader. The geographical origin of the grape IS given, it is correctly described as "southern Caucasus" - that includes the locations of the modern states of Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, none of which existed during the period of this grape's development Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you familiar with redirects? There is an Armenia (wine) article in that it is a redirect to the article on wine in Armenia. Redirects are used throughout Wikipedia for a variety of reasons that are valid and appropriate. We make use of the (wine) DAB particular often as evident by the numerous articles that are linked via the redirects acids (wine), sugar (wine), aroma (wine), France (wine), California (wine), etc. My line about traditional variety is only OR in that I was taking your description of its usage and your attempt at putting in the lead with a reference at face value. I have no problem with it being removed, I was only trying to be considerate to your edits. If it was only up to me, I would have flatly removed the phrase myself since it is a neologism, but I was trying to extend some WP:AGF to a new editor. As for your objection to the term Azerbaijani grape--independent, neutral sources (i.e. non-Azerbaijani and non-Armenian) describe it as a Azerbaijani grape and there is nothing wrong with using that term. Italy did not exist when Sangiovese originated but we still call Sangiovese an Italian grape. Now I'm not going to revert you immediately but I would like to see if you have a source that disputes the claim and reference in the origins section "Madrasa is indigenous to the village of Madrasa in the present-day Shamakhi Rayon of Azerbaijan". Looking at the reliable, neutral sources that claim Madrasa as an Azerbaijani grape, it seems that its origins are keenly tied into that designation. If those origins are disputed then it is worth dropping the term. But I will not willy, nilly disregard neutral reliable sources without verifiable reason to do so. AgneCheese/Wine23:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I understand that you are a new editor but phrases such as "As it stood, it could not remain." in relation to good faith edits is the quintessential attitude that lead to WP:EDITWAR. I highly encourage you to seek more diplomatic recourse in dealing with disagreements. This article has only gotten a little over 300 page views since its creation and I'm willing to wager that at least 3/4 of those were from Tuscambia, you, myself and Aram-van so it is not like the world is watching what is going on over here. No one will die or be harm if the "wrong" version is left until civil discourse takes place. There is no need to edit war. AgneCheese/Wine23:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I agree that wording did sound overly aggressive. But it was annoying to me see you self-characterise your edit as a "compromise", when there seems to me to be nothing that merits a compromise, nothing even that merits a discussion. Actually, I have been editing for the past few months without an account, and only got this login name recently (when after anonymously editing an article I was accused of being a sockpuppet of a horde of banned users). So I know that not only is there no longer an "Armenia (wine)" article, but that such an article title is not recommended. The article is now called "Armenian Wine" and one of the edits I made corrected the old wikilink - an edit that was subsequently removed by both you and Tusscumbia (giving another reason for me to be annoyed). Wikilinks should not go to redirects, but go direct to the actual article title. Italy did exist, a unified Italian state did not - but the geographical entity called Italy did. However, Azerbaiajan even as a geographical entity did not exist in its current form before 1918: "Azerbaijan" was actually the name of a region in northern Persia, south of the border of the modern state called Azerbaijan. So how can it be described as an "Azerbaijani grape"?. I actually find such terminology offensive and ridiculous anyway - how dare anyone seek to assign a human nationality, with implied ownership by a state, onto a plant or animal? Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage you to take a look at WP:REDIRECT, particularly the section WP:NOTBROKEN where the first line clearly states "There is nothing inherently wrong with linking to redirects" and such no reason to "fix" a redirect like Armenia (wine). As an editor, it is far easy to take a line about wine in Armenia with a simple (wine) dab than it is to type out [[Armenian wine|Armenia]]. That's just common sense but the reader goes to the right place either way so I will not fault you for preferring the "long way". You just don't have any reason to criticize my use of a simpler method.
You can't have it both ways. There is not a difference. Italy, the land, the soil, the terroir existed every bit prior to its unification as Azerbaijan, the land, the soil, the terroir existed before 1918. If Italy was suddenly and officially renamed "Berlusconi" then we would duly edit the Sangiovese article to say that it is a Berlusconi grape, etc. There is a saying in the wine industry that fits this perfectly. "The land is the land is the land." That is it and it doesn't matter what the land is called or when it was called it. If the grape originated in the land of Azerbaiajan than it is properly called an Azerbaiajani grape. AgneCheese/Wine00:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No we wouldn't. The country of Azerbaijan has no claim of ownership to items that were created before the country of Azerbaijan existed. You do a disservice to the word "land" and its values: throughout the world cultivated lands were created through hard toil over generations by people who died in their millions in order that those who had no hand in their creation could possess and incorporate those lands within artificial borders. If you are interested in illustrating the history of viticulture, I think you should stop stressing modern-day nationality and start stressing regionality. Regions, after all, are what are important for wine making, and wine marketing, are they not?Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see that there is a fundamental difference in philosophy that we will probably just need to agree to disagree. From my view, the "value" of the land supersedes what it is called (The land is the land is the land, etc) and there is no disservice in using what is essentially a categorization tool (i.e. a name). As for regions vs nationality, it really depends. Australian wine built a huge market in the 1990s and early 2000 on the strength of the Australia brand and is only recently focusing more on marketing the regional identity of places like the Barossa Valley and Hunter Valley (wine). Some areas like Liechtenstein and Luxembourg are so small that describing the region and nationality is essentially one in the same. Other countries like India, Vietnam, Algeria, Egypt and Kazakhstan have wine industries that are either so new or so small that it would be impossible to market them on a regional basis and so they are known simply as Indian, Vietnamese, Algerian wines etc. Describing them that way in no ways diminishing the history of those wines. It is simply a name and the land doesn't care what it is called. AgneCheese/Wine01:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing - As a Westerner, I really don't get the conflict between Armenia, Georgia and other Caucasus countries over Wikipedia articles. I know it is not just wine articles but it ESPECIALLY strikes me as stupid for wine articles since, well it is just freaking wine! While this discussion is going on, I'm battling an apparent "pro-Georgia" anon IP who wants to delete any reference to Armenia's contribution in the History of wine even though that is also cited to neutral, independent reliable sources. I just really don't get why this is such a big deal that somehow cultural pride is at stake over what is in a Wikipedia article. I just don't. AgneCheese/Wine23:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look at that other article, at a glance I'd say that using the phrase "prehistoric Armenia" to characterise a 8000bc site in the Caucasus is just as unacceptable as "Azerbaijani grape" being used to characterise an old variety of grape vine that has been cultivated for centuries by various ethnic groups in various parts of the southern Caucasus region. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you can think of a better wording, please do edit the History of wine article. The editor/IP that was edit warring has been blocked (though he is apparently stalking me on Twitter now) but you should be able to edit it without having to war with him. AgneCheese/Wine00:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This whole effort by the Scribblescribblescribble who is a suspected sockpuppet of User Meowy (SPI) (I'm not the only one who sees it, (see [1]), who had been blocked himself a number of times to remove any traces of the grape variety belonging to Azerbaijan. All the arguments about Azerbaijan "not existing" etc is pure nonsense. Reverting to Agne's compromise version. And yes, Shamakhi is the region of Azerbaijan. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing of the kind be carried out here. Scribblescribblescribble is making a very valid point: since the modern state of Azerbaijan came to being in 1918, that is, long after cultivation had begun, it only stands to reason that we ascribe its history to the region as a whole, since a century ago, no one would have called this "Azerbaijani wine". Unless definitive provenance can be established and linked, I think the practice of ascribing the provenance of Mediterranean and Caucasian cuisine to their respective regions would serve us well here. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That argument has no point whatsoever. Why would it be not ascribed to Azerbaijan when the region has been known as Azerbaijan for centuries. The issue of the name Azerbaijan has been chewed up already. It's about time to put it to rest. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
