Talk:Israeli wine

 

B.C./A.D.

Because of the nature of this article, I believe that the dating system used is a little confusing in regards to the fact it centers at least partly around biblical times. I think the BC/AD system would be more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.31.161.57 (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

I believe this article is not neutral, indeed, I believe that it reads a bit like propaganda. For instance there is no prizes section in the Australian or French wine articles. There are other examples too.Squall1991 12:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there are definitely elements of bias in this article. The use of the word "vibrancy" in the intro is a good example of that. However, French wine is known worldwide as the stereotypical paragon of good wine, and Australian wines are also well-distributed and well known. Israeli wines are not - I think that the vast majority of people would be surprised to learn that there even is a significant production of wine in Israel to begin with. Thus, perhaps the use of a prizes section to help indicate the rising popularity and prominence of Israeli wine is not entirely unjustified, no? LordAmeth 13:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the prizes section is unjustified but I believe that it could be written into other parts of the articleSquall1991 03:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Not neutral. It will be cleaned up as time permits. -- Steve.Moulding 15:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

I have (admittedly unilaterally) Decided to rewrite this article to help. I will list all changes I would make here: 1.Making wine over 2000 years before Europe. Not specific enough get an estimate between year-x and year-y or toss in my opinion. 2. I would not put an emphasis on and remove the phrase "the fact" from "despite the fact that the cellars of Givon were built 500 years earlier than the cellars of Champagne, France" And that is as far as I have got. Plus I would reword the entire section personally but I know people would not like that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Squall1991 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

conveniance link

Anybody who is interested, a slightly older edition (1999, second edition) of The Oxford Companion to Wine is available here. nableezy - 17:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy edits

Recent edits by the user have introduced information into the article that appears to be from the subsequent offline references. I suspect that the two references do not mention the information that was added and the current version is misleading. --Shuki (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The article implied, actually outright said, in several places that the Golan Heights are in Israel. That is incorrect. In no way are the corrections made "misleading". nableezy - 02:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

"Disputed" Golan

The Golan Heights region is not disputed, because Israel does not formally claim it. The Golan Heights Law stops just short of actual annexation. —Ashley Y 14:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

And its not a territory "between Israel and Syria" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I have changed "disputed" to "occupied", since that seemed to be a stale-mate terminology on the Golan Heights article, and Israel has not made any change to its stance regarding the Golan. I have also left Ashley Y's {{dubious}} tag in, in case the change in terminology is not satisfactory with her. --Nsaum75 (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

To Agne27 - sub region of Galilee

The golan is not a sub region of the Galilee. It is only by Israel considered to be a sub region.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

From a wine perspective, Golan Heights is a sub-region of the Galilee. This is how it is presented in our reliable sources. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 15:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have Agne's sources in front of me, but I'd like to point out that in many countries (at least in Europe) it's not uncommon to have wine regions defined in a slightly different way than politicial/administrative regions. Tomas e (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Defining the Golan Heights as a winemaking sub-region of the Galilee is fine, as long as it is made clear elsewhere in the article that the Golan Heights is in fact regarded as occupied territory. This is the viewpoint of the entire world, save Israel. Tiamut^talk 19:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Well the reliable sources relating to wine world (including those written and published by French, American and British authors) describe the Golan Heights as an "Israeli wine region". Please keep in mind, we are writing these articles from a wine perspective, not a political one. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Calling the Golan Heights as "Israeli wine region" is quite different from calling the Golan Heights a "wine region in Israel". In wine articles, distortions of geographical and political facts are not necessary. Tiamut^talk 19:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Agne27. I see you have again removed information regarding the Golan Heights occupied status. I have added more information from a wine source on this subject in this edit. While you claim this is irrelvant to wine source, this article seems to indicate otherwise. I hope you will respect this new addition and reconsider your deletions of Israeli-occupied territories before the mentions of Golan Heights and West Bank. Tiamut^talk 19:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

At least your addition and references maintained a wine-based focus. That is fine and much better than a strictly political addition. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for welcoming the contribution. I have added more material, from another wine article and a followup article to the Sweden labelling system in a non-wine source. I hope they meet with your approval as well. Tiamut^talk 20:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Going too far in censoring out political information

Okay, I understood the point of sticking to wine sources. But once good wine sources discussing the political issues surrounding the Golan Heights were found and added to the article, they were still deleted. I've restored the material, since it is reliably sourced and relevant (the article is in a wine magazine after all, and does discuss Israeli wine production in one of the regions we discuss in this article). I expect that it will be retained and that a substantive discussion will be undertaken to discuss how and if to modify it to meet any concerns articulated here regarding why it is inappropriate. Tiamut^talk 21:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The point isn't finding sources relating to wine. It's about fidning CONTENT relating to wine. You can put that edit in the Golan Heights article if you so wish. It has absolutely nothing to do with this article, "Israeli Wine". Just because the source is a wine article, doesn't mean the content is relevant. And as it stands, the content is absolutely irrelevant in this context. I have removed the matierial because there is no need to host a discussion when something so clearly wrong is added to an article. You asking to have a discussion about this would be like me posting a paragraph about the demographics of Tel Aviv in an article about Beirut, with a Lebanese newspaper as a source, and then demanding that it stay up until we discuss it and reach a consensus.Breein1007 (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Tiamut was making a good effort to bring in relevant wine related content that would be appropriate for this article. How Israeli wine from the Golan Heights is labeled and marketed is appropriate to include in this article. While we need to be careful about WP:UNDUE weight in terms of focusing exclusively on Sweden's response, I would support including some of those details in the article. While not perfect, Tiamut's edits were a good starting point and shouldn't be reverted wholesale. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: After looking more closely at the edits, I realized that there was more content added by Tiamut after I last reviewed the article and that Breein didn't do a wholesale revert. I apologize for jumping to conclusions there. That said, removed paragraph about when/if the Golan Heights is returned to Syria is a little gray. As it was written, it did tilt a little more to the political side then ideal. However, it would obviously affect the Israeli wine industry if the Golan Heights were returned so the topic does merit some coverage in this article. If the paragraph was rewritten to talk more about the impact on the Israeli wine industry, rather than just talk about the political situation and what might happen, then I would support its re-introduction. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on the subject, Agne27. I agree with you about the issue of labeling in Sweden, like you said - I didn't delete that section.Breein1007 (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Agne's second point, which is that while the material removed could be rephrased, it is absolutely relevant, given that any transfer of the Golan back to Syria would impact the wine industry. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to introduce this information in a way that would be more appropriate to the focus of this article? Or should I be bold and give it another shot? Tiamut^talk 08:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - We could say: "with the future of the Golan Heights uncertain, so is that of the wine industry in the region"

Its an accurate statement as who knows if the Syrians would allow the wineries to remain under current ownership, assign new ownership, or dismantle them...it also possible that at some point "Bibi" or a future PM will take the option of returning the Golan to Syria off the table. Without knowing the variables, its best to make a statement that we do know is true: the future is uncertain and so is that of the wine industry.. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 08:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a good start. However, I think it would be better to be a little more specific because for those unfamiliar with the subject, the very vagueness of the statement imparts little in the way of information. The source I was using mentioned that the area might be returned to Syria as part of a land-for-peace deal and that this had been discussed in the 1990s and 2000s by different governments. Can we include that idea and leave it that? The quote from the Haaretz wine critic that I originally included could be simply omitted. Does that work for you? Tiamut^talk 08:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

More specifically, we could merge your sentence and one of mine so that it reads: Israeli governments in the 1990s and 2000s have entertained the possibility of returning the Golan Heights to Syria as part of a land-for-peace deal. With the future of the Golan Heights uncertain, so is that of the wine industry in the region. Tiamut^talk 08:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut, your second suggestion -- as you worded it: "Israeli governments in the 1990s and 2000s have entertained the possibility of returning the Golan Heights to Syria as part of a land-for-peace deal. With the future of the Golan Heights uncertain, so is that of the wine industry in the region." -- is fine by me. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 08:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nsaum75. Half of it is your wording though, so I can't take all the credit. :) Perhaps I'll wait a bit to see what others involved think before proceeding since there was some edit-warring over this previously. Tiamut^talk 09:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I would supoort the above wording. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 15:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

To err on the side of caution sounds good to me. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 09:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

While I disagreed from the beginning that this had anything to do with this wine article, if people are going to insist on inserting it and qualifying it with a vague reference to the wine industry, then I would accept the above wording if we inserted the words "parts of" after "possibility of returning", because no government has made a serious indication that they were planning on handing the entire Golan Heights to Syria on a platter. There have been indications that governments were prepared to negotiate with Syria over the future borders, implying that they would be split up. Breein1007 (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting point regarding "parts of vs whole" of Golan Heights. Does anyone have WP:RS that would clarify this? In particular, I would be interested if there is anything commenting on any uncertainty of Israeli wineries in the Golan Heights on their future? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The article I used as a source for the above proposed text discusses this issue i greater detail too. See here for more. We can certainly expand the information on this issue per what is in this source, among others. Tiamut^talk 21:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Another source is this one: Grapes on the Golan: Israel's boutique wine industry is finally taking off. But now peace talks may threaten their prospects. Tiamut^talk 21:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

We don't have to have anything about peace between Syria and Israel, it doesn't belong here. The problem is that it can not say in this article that Golan is a part of Israel. "The vast majority of Israeli winemaking takes place in the north, including the Galilee, Sharon Plain, Samson, and the Golan Heights. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

In that regard it is not saying that the Golan is part of Israel but rather that Israeli winemaking takes place there. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 15:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that it can still be read as if "the north" is referrig to the north of Israel. It also seems to still imply that these regions are in Israel. They clearly are not, though they are Israeli-occupied territories. I understand your reticence at addressing the political circumstances at every turn in a wine article, but it is rather important not imply that these are geopolitically part of Israel given that the entire world rejects that and Israel itself often mentions its intention to return these areas to the Syrians and Palestinians as part of a peace deal. Tiamut^talk

Israel mentions no such intention. The Golan Heights have been annexed and as far as Israel is concerned, they are part of Israel's permanent borders and will remain that way in the future. If peace negotiations with Syria are successful with Syria in the future, you may expect to see parts of the territory given to Syria in exchange for something else, but how does it make sense to claim that ultimately, Israel will just give it up for "peace"? That's not negotiating, that's unilateral disengagement - something the Israeli government and people have learned does not work, the hard way. Either way, the current wording doesn't suggest that those areas are in northern Israel. They simply imply that wine making takes place further north. This is the best wording, and certainly more appropriate than the recent suggestions made that incorrectly implied that the Galilee and Sharon Plain are occupied territories. While I would love to assume good faith, I find it hard to believe that certain editors did this accidentally, as it seems to me that some of these people do support the ideology that any and all Jewish land in the middle east is occupied territory. Regardless, going back to that old wording is unacceptable. Breein1007 (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you please respond to the proposal above that Nsaum75 ad Agne have said is acceptable to them? The rest of your post has a lot of WP:SOAP in it. No one is suggesting to restore the "old wording" (I don't eve know what you mean by that). Perhaps you might consider offerig new suggestions that address the concerns of your fellow editors who are editing in good faith and do not deserve to be maligned. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 18:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness is suggesting to restore the old wording, because he is the one who was edit-warring that area a couple of weeks ago. The old wording that I am referring to was the one that until a few days ago implied that the Golan Heights, Galilee, Samson, and Sharon Plain were occupied land. I won't offer any new suggestions because I am not the one who has a problem with the current wording. I think it is a fair compromise and a good product of compromise that has resulted in NPOV wording. If anyone has a problem with it and wants to suggest new wording rather than reverting to old, inappropriate wording, I would be happy to look at the suggestion and make my comments. Breein1007 (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I suggest removing "in the north" and simply listing the different sub-regions. That might help avoid the implication that this winemaking is being done in the north of Israel. That's just for starters, but I believe it would begin to help in addressing part of the issue introduced by this wording. Tiamut^talk 21:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that 'the north' is an important specification given the suitable climate. Frankly, if Israel or an Israeli company owned land in Cyprus, I think that it would also be okay to mention that 'Israeli winemaking' occurs there. And lets say that a peace treaty is signed and the Golan is leased to Israel, would the wording need to be changed? --Shuki (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The "climate" section is a better place to mention climate, so I've added that observation to that section. I think the "region" section is difficult enough without adding a crystal ball in there too... looks to me like we have a stable compromise there, given the current situation. mikaul^talk 23:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

AFriedman, please stop removing that Golan is occupied as you did here, that is censorship. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There's support for the reversion of that particular edit. See page history. --AFriedman (talk) 05:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Controversy section

I added a section about controversy: [1] and it got reverted, why cant this be in the article? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

While I can't speak for the editor who removed it, I will say that the writing and tone of your section was very inappropriate for this article. It was something that was more fitting for the Golan Heights article itself and again, overly political. The efforts of Tiamut and Nsaum above to keep the content within a wine perspective are accomplishing some of your goals but not steering this article so completely off course into politics. I would follow their lead. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 15:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Because it was WP:UNDUE.--Shuki (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

There is coverage of this subject is multiple WP:RS. Perhaps rewording it using some of these sources would help:

• Syria protests Israel's gift of Golan wine to UN staff in Haaretz
• Syria protests Israel's 'illegal' Golan wine in Al-Arabiya
• Syria protests Israel Golan wine gift to UN staff in YNET Tiamut^talk 21:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I re added some things in the controversy section, removed in this edit: [2] Its important info and therese really no reason why it shouldn't be in the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Dubious

In the history section, there is reference to "early Israelis" when discussing a historical period in which there were no such people. There is also reference to "Israel" in Roman times, when the land was known as "Palestine". Does anyone have the book from which this information was taken? Can the passages in question please be excerpted and provided here? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 19:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the book, it should be Israelites rather than the modern term Israelis. It has been corrected. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

As for quotes that reference "Israel" versus Palestine, there are several passages that are way too lengthy to type all of them out but some of the terminology includes...

"The Israel of Biblical times is regarded by historians and archeologists alike as the 'cradle of vineyards and wine,' the home of a wine industry that was also much admired by the Greeks and Romans." (pg 742 1st paragraph)

"In ancient times, Israel lay on the 'historic grape route' which later became the wine route from Mesopotamia to Egypt" (pg 742 6th paragraph)

It is clear that the source is using Israel in reference to the biblical Land of Israel and subsequent historical Kingdoms of Israel, including the client kingdom ruled by Herod the Great (37 BCE - 4 BCE) during Roman times. I'm not sure which wiki-links would be best used to clarify this sincere are several entities that have been called "Israel" in one way or the other. Though considering the source makes no reference to "Palestine", I'm not sure if that would be appropriate to use. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to present the relevant passages. Many of ths ources I have seen that discuss wine-making and its history in this region use the word "Palestine". However, given that this is an article about "Israeli wine", there is no need for them to be mentioned here. Perhaps I will start an article on the history of winemaking in Palestine at some point. Tiamut^talk 13:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Oooh, that would be awesome if you get the chance. I would very much look forward to reading that. :) Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)