Talk:Zinfandel

Why is Grgich omitted?

After all, it was the owner of Grgich Hills who helped fund the study to identify Zinfandel - and I might say he produces a superior Zinfandel wine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.67.225 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-29

Yes, I've had some excellent Zinfandels from Croatian wineries in California. I think, though, that financial contributors to a research effort aren't really relevant to this article, even if one of the contributors happens to make wine. More relevant would be a description of the research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by amatulic (talk • contribs)

Wine distribution (USA) POV and accuracy

In re-reading this now-vastly-improved article, it occurred to me that there's little value in using a non-neutral source for listing the counties "known for" producing Zinfandel, as well as the subjective wine-snob descriptions of the wine characteristics (which I'm guilty of adding myself in the case of Amador, being most familiar with that area).

According to the USDA, Alameda county (for example) has only 114 acres of Zinfandel. That's less than two standard 80-acre plots. Santa Cruz county has only 15 acres! That's hardly enough production to justify being "known for" producing Zinfandel, let alone deserving of a flowery description for wine that is likely to be unavailable to anyone except locals.

(Keep in mind Santa Cruz County from the USDA statistics differs from Santa Cruz Mountain AVA. Much of Santa Cruz Mountain AVA lies in Santa Clara County. This following statement in the Wikipedia article makes that mistake, in addition to incorrectly stating that Santa Cruz Mountains AVA lies in Santa Clara Valley. Also, the claim about 9 acres in Santa Cruz County are mis-quoted from the source. The 9 acres are the number of acres of Zinfandel that were planted in 2006, not the total number of acres planted to Zinfandel in Santa Cruz County - which is 15, according to the source: "Although the Santa Cruz Mountains AVA in Santa Clara Valley produces Zinfandel from just 9 acres (3.6 ha),[44] the Zinfandel from that region is known for its complexity and depth.[42]") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtnygard (talk • contribs) 05:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

If we are to list areas of California "known for" producing Zinfandel, I suggest one of the following options:

• Limit the list to those counties that have planted at least, say, 800 acres.
• List the viticultural regions known for producing Zinfandel (I mean really "known for", not simply producing it as a minor aside to some other varietal), and the primary producing counties within each region.
• List the USDA-listed Zin producing counties in descending order of production, and include only the top 80% in the article.

The subjective descriptions of the wine should probably go too. I've tasted Zinfandel from many wine producers in many counties, and I can say there is far more variability in each county than the current descriptions would suggest. -Amatulic (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Few thoughts

1.) It is generally poor form to slap a tag on an article that is actively being edited (which given the traffic the last few days, this article is "active"), rather than bring up concerns on the talk page first and try to work the out details before "branding it". I respectfully ask you to reconsider your edit and remove the tag.

2.) I think it far more subjective to set an arbitrary number of acres or production value to determine if something is notable. Why 800? Why not 850? or 500? Unless a reliable source, establishes some sort of objective criteria or number, it is really not our place to make one up. So what does that leave us? To go back to the reliable sources and what they list as notable regions. If there is any subjectivity in the process, it is rightly being attributed and pointed back to the sources and their expertise-not ours.

3.) It took a long road for me to admit that there is encyclopedic value in describing the stereotypical association of a certain wine in a certain terroir. The nail in the coffin was when I realized that groups like the Court of Master Sommeliers and the Wine & Spirits Wine Educator certification actually tests on these stereotypical association which are commonly written about in wine books and magazines. It is part of describing what the wine is and distinguishes it from other wines. It like describing a baseball player's batting stance or the different styles of music and noodle soup. But I absolutely detest the thought of making Wikipedia anything close to a wineguide so what do we do? Once again, go back to the reliable sources. Of course we should try to word things as NPOV as possible but how many different ways can you describe a "juicy wine" as...well... juicy? But then again, does juicy convey any POV? Is it a negative or a positive attribute of the wine? Who knows! That is up to the individual reader to decide for themselves but if reliable sources are describing the stereotypical characteristics of this particular wine as "juicy" then we should plainly state that fact and attribute it to that reliable source. And the source is really the key, especially when it comes from a well respected wine writer and not some wine review or blog. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, as a side, Quantity and quality don't always equate and is a poor judge of notability. Just because the jug wine producing Central Valley has more acreage of a variety planted doesn't mean it is more well known than the smaller producing Napa, Sonoma or Santa Cruz areas. The Columbia Valley AVA produces far more Viognier than Condrieu but do you want to guess which one is more noted for Viognier? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Zinfandel is a wine grape, and I think that needs to kept in consideration when discussing what areas are notable for its growth. The notability of a region isn't dependent on how many acres are planted there, but the quality of the wines that are made from there. The only consideration that I ever have on the acreage of grapes in a certain area is how it affects whether I can get any :). Although I don't have problems mentioning the areas that grow a significant amount of Zin in the article, I do think it's important to include (and maybe focus on) regions that are known for the wines that they produce. These are the areas that people are going to see on the label. When it comes to general notability, it's not something that can be easily measured, and we would have to rely on reputable "experts" in the wine world to document. The Bethling^(Talk) 03:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)

Agne, thanks for your responses. Regarding (1), that particular list isn't being actively edited, and it's been bothering me for several days now, which is why I tagged it and explained my reasoning. I think the tag belongs there, so I won't remove it, but I won't revert either if someone else removes it as long as there is some effort to resolve the issues I raised.

I also agree with you about (2) in that setting an acreage cutoff is subjective; that's why I proposed other ways to resolve it.

Regarding (3), I don't object to industry-accepted descriptors, provided those terms are meaningful and not simply someone notable blowing hot air. I guess my objection boils down to a single statement:

The article shouldn't present opinions as fact, even when those opinions come from a notable or reliable source.

Flowery descriptions that result from actual tests I can accept. I can't tell if that's the case here; the descriptions seem too pat, too stereotyped, perhaps concentrating on the production of one or two wineries and not the range of flavors and styles that come from a region.

Even so, test results can't be represented properly in 1-line sound bites about each county. Napa valley, for example, is known for its Zinfandel. Talk to the winemakers in Amador county, however, and you learn that a lot of good Zinfandel coming out of Napa uses grapes from Amador or Lodi — in which case, any judgment about quality has less to do with the location of the winemaker and more to do with the actual origin of the grapes and the winemaker's own style. For the sake of argument, if all of Napa's Zinfandel came from elsewhere, would Napa still be regarded as a notable producer? Perhaps by some, but it wouldn't be a realistic assessment. So where do you draw the line?

As to your side comment about quantity vs quality, you do have a point. I'll counter it by saying that, in the past, we removed from this article a list of wineries known for producing Zinfandel, because the existence of that section attracted all manner of spam and irrelevant entries from people who wanted to promote a particular winery. (Listing wineries by sales volume wasn't practical in this case because the biggest producer makes White Zin.)

The same problems exist with a list of counties known for producing Zinfandel. So I would suggest we either: (a) delete the section, (b) revise it to list viticultural regions, or (c) revise it to list the top producers. I honestly don't know how else to cleanly avoid presenting the opinions of others as fact without polluting the list with "so and so claims..." disclaimers. In my own view, notwithstanding the quantity vs quality argument, I'll add that when a source says a county is "known for" producing Zinfandel when hard production data clearly contradicts that source, I'd hardly call the source reliable.

With that in mind, here's a compilation of the USDA statistics by county, sorted in descending order of acreage:

County 2005 total 2005 cum 2005 pct San Joaquin 19467 19467 37.9% Sonoma 5283 24750 48.1% Madera 3638 28388 55.2% Fresno 2940 31328 60.9% San Luis Obispo 2765 34093 66.3% Mendocino 2072 36165 70.3% Amador 1885 38050 74.0% Napa 1859 39909 77.6% Kern 1844 41753 81.2% Merced 1646 43399 84.4% Sacramento 1623 45022 87.5% Tulare 977 45999 89.4% Colusa 833 46832 91.1% Stanislaus 801 47633 92.6% Lake 675 48308 93.9% San Bernardino 562 48870 95.0% Contra Costa 420 49290 95.8% Glenn 368 49658 96.6% Yolo 27 49937 97.1% Monterey 253 50190 97.6% Kings 251 50441 98.1% El Dorado 247 50688 98.6%

County 2005 total 2005 cum 2005 pct Alameda 114 50802 98.8% Santa Clara 93 50895 99.0% Solano 91 50986 99.1% San Benito 80 51066 99.3% Butte 68 51134 99.4% Calaveras 63 51197 99.6% Santa Barbara 52 51249 99.7% Placer 49 51298 99.7% Riverside 39 51337 99.8% Sutter 20 51357 99.9% Nevada 18 51375 99.9% Mariposa 14 51389 99.9% Trinity 10 51399 99.9% Santa Cruz 9 51408 100.0% Los Angeles 6 51414 100.0% San Diego 4 51418 100.0% Tehama 3 51421 100.0% San Mateo 2 51423 100.0% Siskyou 2 51425 100.0% Humboldt 1 51426 100.0% Tuolomne 1 51427 100.0% Ventura 1 51428 100.0%

Some interesting observations:

• The old cliché 80/20 rule is well represented here: the top 20% of producers (9/44) produce 80% of the Zinfandel.
• The top 50% (22/44) produce almost 99% (nearly all) of the Zinfandel.
• The top quartile or so contains most of the counties deemed "notable" for Zinfandel. I note that the #1 ranked county contains Lodi, the location of some of the oldest Zinfandel vines in existence.

Above is an objective, not subjective, list of Zinfandel producing counties. It avoids the problem of presenting opinions as fact. I'm not advocating we present a table, but it is valuable to present the major producers.

Also, I don't mind having a separate section of prose describing what areas of California are considered noteworthy by specific named luminaries in the wine business, but the list as it stands now isn't neutral. -Amatulic (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Section break

I appreciate the reply and I see your point but I do think it is very subjective of us to try and come up with our own criteria of what is a notable wine region. I feel very committed to just letting the reliable sources lead the way here as being the least subjective and POV oriented path we can take. I think there is a finite number of areas that a collective number of reliable wine sources would list as "notable" regions (in contrast to wineries which could be infinite). While an external link to the table to show a more comprehensive view of Zin planting is, there is a reason why those 15 acres of Santa Cruz and however many acres of Dry Creek Valley, etc consistently show up in well respected and well known reliable sources as being "known Zin producing areas". There is something unique about the wine from there that, good or bad, is of encyclopedic note to the wine drinker. I trust the expertise of these reliable sources over any subjective criteria we could come up with. The list, as it stands now, is far more neutral than anything we could create by interjecting our own POV in establishing a subjective criteria.
1.) In regards to your concerns about "The article shouldn't present opinions as fact, even when those opinions come from a notable or reliable source.", I would say that we are in a more unique situation due to the fact by sheer human nature "taste" is a personal, subjective thing. We will always encounter obstacles because there is absolutely no way that anyone can describe the taste of anything without it ultimately being classified as an opinion. The fact that chili peppers taste "hot" is, in fact, an opinion though it is a very common opinion and description used to describe the taste and physical reaction to eating chili peppers. But I doubt anyone will argue that we should remove references to "hotness" from any of our chili pepper articles because they are "opinions"? We do have an encyclopedic duty to describe the wine and describe what makes this particular wine in this particular terroir unique and different from another wine in another area. Yes there are always "exceptions" and there will always be wineries who buck the trend but exceptions are "exceptions" because they are less likely to be encountered than the norm. In order to best maintain NPOV we have to not only throughly remove ourselves and our opinions from the equation but we must also strive to throughly follow the path of our reliable sources and use the "stereotypical descriptions" and not a wine review from a newspaper or blog. The wording is always open for discussion and terms should always be as generic as possible. No one is asking that we include things like "and this wine is really yummy" but we shouldn't go to the point of labeling everything an opinion either to where we are throwing out baby with the bathwater.
2.) In regards to "I'll add that when a source says a county is "known for" producing Zinfandel when hard production data clearly contradicts that source, I'd hardly call the source reliable.", I think you are still giving more weight to "quantity" for notability (being known) rather than "quality" which is what most wine experts and enthusiasts would use more for a benchmark of "being known" for something. For years there was more Carignan and Aramon planted in France than Cabernet Sauvignon and Pinot Noir, yet which grapes is France more well known for. If we use quantity then it would be the former, if we use quality then it is obviously the later. With Zinfandel, do you think wine drinkers are more aware of Zin from the jug wine producing Madera County than Paso Robles, Napa, Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz? Once again, if we use quantity than obvious Madera County Zin is up there with the kings (along with Carignan and Aramon!) and any reader who happens to be a wine enthusiast should never expect to read about or see bottles of wine from those other "backwoods" wine regions or those "obscure" grapes of Merlot and Cap. Excuse me for noting that such logic is a little on the absurd side. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 09:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope you can forgive me for pointing out that the source of your problem here appears to be a large dose of bias which is also giving undue weight to the Cali growers. Maybe that's less true on the latter point, as US producers probably do form the most notable group, but it seems there's currently too much detail relative to other countries/regions, on the characteristics of the produce of individual Californian regions. Sorting out what constitutes notability (the "known for" factor) is a big enough hill to climb for now, one that needs settling before getting into any mention of specific terroir and wineries. For this, I'd say you take, as far as is practical, the sum of RS opinion, and where this amounts to only one reliable opinion, leave it out altogether. In other words, Oz Clarke's lone opinion isn't enough; where his and A.N.Other's coincide, I'd say you have sufficient objectivity. If there's not enough written on the subject, QED: it probably does represent overkill, at least for this article. Just my 2¢. --mikaul^talk 12:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No need for forgiveness. It is a reasonable observation. Truth be told, I would love to see more details on notable regions of Primitivo and Crljenak Kaštelanski and have been looking for reliable sources that comment more on that. Hit a little bit of a road block with non-english sources. But I don't know how much of undue weight it is, in proportion to what the average English Wikipedian reader is going to encounter in terms of Zin/Primitivo/Crljenak Kaštelanski. As for the decision about the "known for" factor, I will point out that several sources list many of these California areas (and I could spell each one out in long, laborious details if it comes down to it). The single ref to Clarke was used in the case of simplicity since it adequatedly verified the information in one fell swoop rather than tacking on multiple footnotes to reference the same fact. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 13:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I would certainly agree with you on brevity, but this same issue comes up with wine tasting: it's an area so prone to editor POV I'm inclined to be extra careful with descriptors from single sources, no matter how well-renowned. I don't think there's even a WP guideline on the issue, but theres undeniable subjectivity about these things. I remember researching Tempranillo and having to disregard masses of stuff by Penin, writer of the acknowleged Spanish wine "bible", due to the amount of POV inherent in his descriptors. Maybe a compromise (albeit far from ideal) would be some kind of qualification in the text such as "has been described as.." or "regarded as.." which begs the question, "by whom?" rather than badly stating opinion as fact. For most people (myself included!) finding out that it was Clarke's opinion would be all I needed to know, quite frankly. A fantastic series starring OC touring California with a wacky sidekick has just finished on BBC tv, btw. If you ever get the chance to see it, it's probably the best prog on wine I've ever watched :o) --mikaul^talk 14:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That is not a bad idea for a compromise. While the footnote does link to the source, it probably wouldn't hurt to note something like wine expert Oz Clarke (or Jancis Robinson) has said. Unfortunately there are distinguished experts like Karen MacNeil that don't have articles yet. (I suppose I could fix that :p) but it is still a nice way of presenting the credibility of the reliable source without resorting to weasel or peacock terms. I know. I've been watching the development of our Oz and James's Big Wine Adventure article and I'm jealous that I don't get BBC. I'll have to wait for it to get on Netflix or Blockbuster. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 14:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[1] Merry Christmas :o) --mikaul^talk 14:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Wonderful! Agne^Cheese/^Wine 15:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Is the answer to splinter? Stuff like the acreages quoted above are encyclopedic, but would unbalance the article, which in any case is approaching the 32kb mark where splintering becomes a possibility. An article like Zinfandel in California would allow you to get as micro-detailed as you like, whilst keeping the main Zin article reasonably balanced and compliant with WP:CSB. I'm not saying that it's a universal solution, but would work in this case. Not that I'm trying to hurry things up cos I'd like to GA this before the end of the year. ;-/ Mind you, having seen the state Tempranillo was in to get GA, we must be going for FA with this one...... FlagSteward (talk) 14:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Could be. My only real concern was the WP:UNDUE thing; bias is everywhere.. and everything else is reading very well indeed. --mikaul^talk 14:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• • With as great of job as FlagSteward has done with this article, I say FA is certainly a possibility. In regards to Mick's comment, I'm sure there can be some tweaking but I do wonder how the weight is balanced against what the reader is going to be exposed to out in the wine world itself. As for the splinter idea, I suppose that is a possibility but I do fret at the potential of splinters for nearly every wine grape made in a different region Syrah in France/Shiraz in Australia, etc. I would prefer to find some solution and balance of weight to keep the article in tact. I think one balance issue that needs to be consider is coverage of the grape vs coverage of the wine. While the article is undoubtedly about the grape, you can't separate the issue of the wine from it. I do see some of this conflict in Amatulic's table of production yields and my concerns about quantity/quality. For an article purely focused on the grape, than such a table would be a prominent feature. But I really have to wonder of how much value or interest is there in the grape if not for the wine? From my perspective (and this is my personal approach to all wine articles I work on) the focus of the article is the wine and all the periphery details about climate/history/soil/winemaking/etc are all meant to tell the story of the wine. The details of the grape are the details of the "passenger vessel" of the journey that leads ultimately to the wine itself. Hence, the reason why the reputation of the wine (as noted by reliable sources) is of more encyclopedic note than production numbers. The region whose grapes goes into "well known wine" is more notable of region than one whose grapes go into nameless jug wine. I do think that perspective is more closely tied into what our readers are expecting as well. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 15:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Another section break

We seem to have lost sight of my original dispute.

Agne:

As I said earlier, I believe the list of counties should be replaced by prose describing what notable wine critics have to say about them, and attributing those opinions to those individuals rather than presenting them as fact. I also believe mention should be made of the major producing areas, either by county or by viticultural region. I strongly disagree with you that the current state of the list is "more neutral than anything we could create" because I am advocating objective, not subjective, criteria. To answer your numbered paragraphs:

1. The hotness of chili peppers isn't an opinion at all, it's an objective measure of the level of capsaicin in peppers, expressed as a number on the scoville scale. I agree with your other point that we should present the opinions of reliable sources. I don't have an issue with that. I do have an issue with that list of counties currently presenting those opinions as fact, without attribution to the person holding those opinions. I have no problem with the article expressing them as opinions, but expressed as fact, we have Wikipedia advocating a particular point of view in violation of WP:NPOV.
2. I am not confusing quality with quantity. I am simply saying that production and sales volume is an objective measurement, not subject to whims or opinions, and large producers are notable for being large producers regardless of the quality of their Zinfandel. As I said, I have no objection to some text describing reliable-source opinions of different counties, as long as those opinions are stated as such and attributed properly.

Bear in mind that, the existence of the current list, or opinion-laden prose I suggest, will attract spammers, as the now-deleted "list of notable wineries" section attracted them earlier. It's a problem that pervades Wikipedia. It existed in this article, and it exists now in others I edit (for example, folks often add promotional text about their university to the MBA article). Presenting opinions as opinions attributed to reliable sources will help other editors keep things in check. The list as it currently stands has no such protective qualities.

I want to underscore the point that it's worth mentioning the 20% of producers that produce 80% of the Zinfandel. This is not an arbitrary subjective line, it's a statistically valid boundary known as the pareto principle.

FlagSteward:

I don't think we need to splinter the article. I wasn't advocating inclusion of a comprehensive table like I created above; I think that would make the article unmanageable because the data would change from year to year, plus we have the WP:UNDUE thing to consider. However, the list of the top 20% producers should stay about the same. That's just 9 counties, a much more manageable list than what the article currently has. -Amatulic (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the conversation has splintered in a couple directions but this is nonetheless important territory to cover. Now back to the subject. Mick suggested something similar to the lines of including things like "Wine expert Oz Clarke has said ..." and I would have no objection to the section being edited to that effect. It is essentially just repeating what the "footnote" says since anyone that is curious about a statement can just follow the footnote to see who said it. That does pose some farther reaching concerns down the road if Flag wanted to take this article up to Feature Status because I've seen the FAC crowd view such things as "unneeded redundancy" since, again, the footnote already says what we are putting into prose. For GA, it probably won't be a road block.

1.) Chili peppers (a tad off topic, I know) but my opinion comment is actually correct. If you ever went to a Chili pepper eating contest, that concept is reinforced when you see contestant breeze through the Rocoto category saying that it is "mild" while other contestants (myself included!) are crying and gasping for air because it is too "hot". While the Capsicum factor is objective, how we describe the effects of that is PURELY opinion. Getting back to wine, we can find similar examples. Look at the sweetness of wine. We can measure the residual sugar and get an objective guide, but taking in the factors of ripeness of fruit, glycerin content, etc different tasters can perceive different levels of sweetness. You see this often in German wine, especially from the Pfalz where it may have objectively enough residual sugar to be considered dry but the wines often have a taste of being "off dry" due to the various aspects of winemaking.

2.) I think what I find most trouble about the table and focus on production is that a jug wine producing region like Madera County is considered over Santa Cruz as a "notable producer" which is mention in several well respect, very reliable wine sources like Clarke, Oxford Companion, Karen MacNeil's Wine Bible, Jancis Robinson, Sotheby, Wine Spectator etc. Despite having a large 3638 to 9 acre advantage, Madera is giving little no mention at all in any of these sources. In looking at WineSpectator, Decanter, Wine Ethusist, WineSearcher and Wine.com I couldn't even find a single bottling of "Madera County Zinfandel" which goes to show that it is most used in nameless blends. While there maybe reason for a small separate section mentioning plantings, it would be a great disservice to our readers to ignore the compelling evidence of respected and reliable wine experts in discounting the 9 acres (I think the current number is actually 19 but I lost my link) of a notable Zin region like Santa Cruz. That is a large reason why I think it is more POV and more subjective to try and establish our own criteria of notable regions rather than just follow the sound and reliable sources in our articles. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 10:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a couple of brief points: the inline mention of an opinion needn't explicitly name the source – that's what the footnote is for. However, any sentence with a subjective descriptor in it should contain a phrase like "has been described^[1] as" or whatever, to avoid the factual statement thing. Second, I would strongly oppose any attempt to reduce our wine articles to "only objective info" – or even a predominance of it. I wholly agree with Agne in that, for any descriptive written document on the subject of wine, regions are notable by reputation, not volume of production or acreage. Wine doesn't "work" like that. Sure, we can & should be scientific about production methods, statistics and maybe even stuff like terroir, but to 99% of readers, wine is something you drink & not something you need a calculator to understand. We need to present grapes and regions from this perspective, first and foremost. --mikaul^talk 14:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

We're making progress. Here are some bulleted responses:

• mickaul, your first point is exactly what I'm trying to say. I strongly object to presenting opinions as fact. The opinions of respected wine sources should be presented, but as opinions. I haven't seen a featured article yet that states an opinion as a fact, then relies on a footnote to attribute the statement as someone's opinion.
  • As an analogous point, Agne, you stated a while back on this talk page that you think Ridge Zinfandel is over-oaked. If a respected wine critic described the oak as "perfectly balanced", how would you feel if an article on Ridge Winery stated, as fact, that Ridge Zinfandel has perfectly balanced oak, and simply referenced the source in a footnote? In this case, the article clearly contradicts your own knowledge, and clearly pushes the POV of someone without explaining that Ridge Zinfandel "is considered by wine critics" as being perfectly balanced. See what I mean? This article, right now, does the same thing with respect to wine-producing counties. It clearly contradicts my own knowledge and clearly pushes the POV of the cited sources without explaining that these are viewpoints.
• I really dislike presentating different counties as a list, because lists tend to get abused by POV-pushers. It's better to write prose about how experts describe Zinfandel from different places.
• If this article is about the grape, then production is relevant to notability. If it's about the wine, then respected wine sources are relevant to notability. I have stated before on this talk page that we're writing about the grape, not the wine. That's no longer true, we're writing about both. Therefore, information about where the grape is grown and in what quantities is relevant. The WP:UNDUE guidelines come into play here. The article seems to have more content about the grape than the wine, so shouldn't the article focus as much on grape production as on the opinions of wine experts?
• Agne, you seem to be implying that production isn't important. Like it or not, Madera County is notable as a large producer of Zinfandel. Yes, they don't produce Zinfandel of distinction. That's a separate issue (and I'd argue that such a major producing area making substandard wine is also worthy of note).
• I have said before that I don't want a table of statistics either; any objection to that is a red herring. I put the table in this talk page simply to illustrate a point.
• It isn't "more" POV to employ accepted statistical tools such as the pareto principle to state that 20% of the counties (9 out of 44) produce 80% of California's Zinfandel. That's an objective fact. I fail to see the NPOV violation in stating that simple fact, and naming the counties. And I haven't yet seen a compelling argument against it. I'm not advocating replacing the POV descriptions; we should still have those, as long as it's clear those descriptions are opinions.

All I'm suggesting is to add a statement like I describe in my last bullet above, and re-write the POV list as POV prose, making clear that the purpose is to describe recognized viewpoints. I would also prefer to see the POV prose written to focus on viticultural regions, not counties, and mention the relevant counties within those regions. Those changes would alleviate my POV concerns. -Amatulic (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Section break #3

I agree that we are making progress and filling up the kilobytes (of which I am soundly guilty of aiding and abetting :p). Now onto the bullets.

• Regarding Ridge - My experience is my experience and is only an opinion. If someone added well referenced information from a respected wine expert (not some random newspaper journalist or blog) that contradicts my own experience (and I've verified that the source is represented correctly) then that is fine. I certainly wouldn't hold my palate or opinion as superior to someone that is more experienced and knowledgeable than I. It all comes back to the quality of the source.
• Between list or prose, it is all a style issue and I have no problem with the current referenced items in the section being converted to prose. I never did. My concerns have been over the question of excluding notable and referenced regions from the list based on (what appears to me) to be a more subjective criteria.
• The article is about both the grape and the wine but obviously the wine should be a substantial focal point because the notability of the grape rest squarely on the wine. It is frankly the reason why we are all here and the reason why our articles on Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, Sauvignon blanc, etc gets more attention and readership than the articles on Thompson Seedless and Cardinal. I don't have a strong objection towards including a small section on vineyard production but I do think that an overemphasis of that falls into the WP:UNDUE weight category. I think our readers would be better served with having sections on Primitivo regions in Italy and Crljenak Kaštelanski regions in Croatia than in adding an additional California section based purely on production to note some of the jug wine producing regions like Madera County.
• Along those line, I strongly disagree that production numbers establishes notability for a wine region. While regions who are already notable for their wine may see high production numbers, the cost and economics of cheap land and cheap wine also drive up production numbers too. Madera County is simply not a notable Zin producing region. No one hears about Madera County Zin because there is nothing to hear or see. Those thousands of acres produces gallons of nameless "red wine" are at most a passing note in a small production section. Giving undue weight to areas like this serve very little benefit to our readers. Rather than contend for inclusion of a region like Madera County, more focus should be spent on finding info about the more pertinent (thoughly probably much smaller) regions of Primitivo and Crljenak Kaštelanski.
• And yes, your principle is POV because you are arbitrarily deciding that a principle like this should be used as a criteria for inclusion. It is especially POV-oriented when that principle elevates regions like Madera County over other regions that have been considered notable by a broad range of exceedingly reliable sources. Basing the criteria of inclusion on reliable sources rather than on our own arbitrary establishment of "principles" married with figures and data is, indeed, far more neutral. If a region is supported by multiple reliable sources than that is probably a notable region. If there is only one isolated source, or a weak source at that, probably not. Remember, verifiability/no OR and the use of reliable sources are part of the pillars of Wikipedia. The pareto principle is not. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

"What we have here, is a failure to communicate." (famous quotation from Cool Hand Luke)

Before I address your points, let me remind everyone of WP:NPOV#Characterizing opinions of people's work and WP:NPOV#Attributing and substantiating biased statements. Those bits are my focus in this dispute.

• I guess I failed at communicating the intent of my hypothetical question. Human beings are full of opinions. Some, like you and me, don't count for anything with respect to wine. If my opinion about a wine contradicts a notable expert's, I can accept that. I think we both agree there. If that notable expert's opinion is expressed as fact in an article, then Wikipedia is taking the position of that expert, pushing his POV, and that not only grossly violates the WP:NPOV principle, but it also insults the intelligence of the readers. Tastes in wine is a subjective thing. To have Wikipedia saying, essentially, "You, dear reader, have incorrect subjective perceptions, here's what you should think" rather than saying "Here's what experts think", is just wrong. For example, I find I don't have the same taste in wine style as Robert Parker. If Parker says XYZ is the best Bordeaux of 2005, and I disagree, I'd still have no problem if a Wikipedia article says "According to Robert Parker, XYZ is the best Bordeax of 2005." That's quite different from an article stating flatly "XYZ is the best Bordeaux of 2005^[4]" with a footnote.
• Where have I suggested excluding notable regions? Look at my past comments. I am advocating including them, in the context of accepted views of notable critics, not presented as bare assertions. I am also advocating including mention of production in the spirit of WP:UNDUE.
• I agree that this article is about both grape and wine, and that the wine is the focal point, although the majority of the text discusses the grape.
• Your disagreement is noted. I disagree with you. I see you agree that it's worth mentioning "as a passing note in a small production section." Then perhaps we are in agreement after all. Your arguments have convinced me that the focus shoudn't be production, but I insist that production still deserves a mention. If you're a interested in agriculture, that's the criterion of note. If you're a wine-maker, perhaps then too. If you're a wine officionado, then production quantity is irrelevant.
• Yes, remember the pillars of Wikipedia. USDA statistics are verifiable and the USDA is a reliable source. Stating that 20% of the counties produce 80% of the Zinfandel is an objective, undisputed fact, and complies rigorously with WP:NOR (read the first section) in that it is source-based and doesn't go beyond what the source states. I don't see the logic in your assertion that such a statement violates WP:NPOV.

Perhaps I should make an attempt at rewriting that section and post it here for review. We're talking in circles now. -Amatulic (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that is an excellent idea and I think it will help me to better understand where you are coming from. I will hold off commenting till then. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there any progress being made towards a resolution of this matter? We need to get rid of that tag by dealing with the matter and solving any apparent problems. -- Fyslee / talk 06:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been on vacation and haven't had a chance to work on it. I agree with the need to get rid of that tag and I will propose a change in the coming week or so. I must say also that I'm a bit distressed that what started as a simple tagging with explanation turned into a torrential dispute between me and Agne. I hope that when I propose an alternative (as a subpage) that others will edit it for content and sources. -Amatulic (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking forward to it. Enjoy your vacation. -- Fyslee / talk 19:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see User:Amatulic/drafts. I made passing mention of production quanitites, removed otherwise non-notable producing regions, and, most importantly rewrote everything as prose rather than list items, with opinions and subjective views stated as such, not as fact.

Please edit/revise that draft as necessary, or comment. Then we can put it in the article and remove that damn NPOV tag. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice job. I do like the improvement on the prose vs list format. As for the content, I can certainly live it with as an acceptable compromise. As a side note, Flag mentioned on the project talk that he will be on holiday till the 3rd or 4th so it will probably be a few days before he'll chime in. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 03:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

After 3 weeks or so without seeing any objection, I have replaced the section as proposed. Maybe now the article will qualify for GA status. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well considering the difficulties I'm encountering with Beaujolais wine because I don't have some things "cited twice" with the same footnote, one line after the other, I'm not sure anymore. :p On the surface, it seems like a sure fire pass but it is hard to be sure about anything anymore. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

"Zinfandel is a variety of red grape planted in over 10 percent of California vineyards." - first sentence in the lead - NPOV?? --IIIraute (talk) 06:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I get the impression from the article that the Zinfandel grape is more highly esteemed in the US than it is in Europe. If this is true it would help to explain the presence of this NPOV statement. Maproom (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Zinfandel vs Primitivo

The article starts "Zinfandel (also known as Primitivo)", which is technically correct but misleading. In some countries - notably Italy - either name may be used, (and here in the UK what would have been Primitivo wines from Italy are often labelled Zinfandel as the latter name is better known here). But it's misleading, as the two grapes are NOT the same. It is thought that they are similar clones of Crljenak Kaštelanski, (and not of Plavac Mali as was previously suspected). But that doesn't make them identical. I think the article ought to discuss this in a detail section, and also make it clear they're not actually the same in its heading. I'm not going to make that change myself though as I don't want to add something that might look like OR, especially as I don't have an account here.

On this subject, someone might want to add this reference: http://autochthoinos.com/2013/04/one-and-the-same-zinfandel-primitivo-crljenak-kastelanski-kratosija/ 146.90.53.124 (talk) 10:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC) dww (David Wright)

Are there any other reliable sources that refute the assertion that Zinfandel and Primitivo are genetically identical? Nobody denies that Primitivo and Zinfandel are clones of Crlenak Kastelanski.

It doesn't matter if you don't have an account here as long as you can make a change based on reliable sources that isn't OR.

That reference wouldn't be acceptable for two reasons: (1) it's a blog, and (2) it references this Wikipedia article. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The criteria for choosing the main name are:

1. Place and date when that variety was first mentioned;

2. The name that variety first had.

If the variety is of Croatian origin, then (whether we like it or not) the main name of the variety must be Croatian (Tribidrag, 15th century), and the others must be treated as synonyms. However, under no circumstances can the name Zinfandel be the main name. https://www.total-croatia-wine.com/grapes/517-the-indigenous-grapes-of-croatia-original-zinfandel-crljenak-kastelanski SenatorulX (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@SenatorulX: No, that is absolutely not how Wikipedia works. WP:COMMONNAME determines what we call an article topic. If you want to change the official naming guideline, this talk page is not the proper venue. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist:There are several options to consider:

1. The scientifically correct variant, Tribidrag. The above rule is not issued by me, but by an international body that sets the rules for receiving variety names (unfortunately, I do not remember now what it is called, but I will search and mention later). If this variety is first mentioned in the 15th century, then its name is the main one, and the others are synonymous. https://www.vivc.de/index.php?r=cultivarname%2Findex&CultivarnameSearch%5Bcultivarnames%5D=&CultivarnameSearch%5Bcultivarnames%5D=cultivarn&CultivarnameSearch%5Btext%5D=zinfandel

2. The variant according to Wikipedia's policies, ie according to notoriety. By far, Primitivo is the name with the most notoriety. In addition, it is the name under which it is registered in the largest database in the world, www.vivc.com. And it is a scientific database, made by researchers, not by any amateur, passionate and so on. Consequently, if you ignore the requirement in point 1 then you will have to comply with at least Wikipedia's notoriety policy.

3. The Zinfandel variant does not have any of the above arguments. You have to remember that Zinfandel would have been remembered if this variety was of American origin, but DNA analysis clearly shows that it is of Balkan origin (see also the source above) and, more precisely, of Croatia. Consequently, the Zinfandel variant cannot be retained as the main name, but only as a synonym.

I have no direct interest in this whole issue, but it is strictly about respecting a reality.SenatorulX (talk) 11:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

The only thing that matters in how an article is titled is WP:COMMONNAME. Other names can be mentioned in the lead paragraph of the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, then let's meet the requirements WP:COMMONNAME. The most commonly used name is Primitivo, not Zinfandel. I mean, exactly what I wrote in point 2.SenatorulX (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

A New York Times Article on the origin

This suggests that the origin of the grape if Dalmatia, the origin of the name is from Hungary, and the reasin is a mislabeling:

http://www.nytimes.com/1986/04/02/garden/l-zinfandel-s-origins-390586.html

Timur lenk (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)