Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:16, 22 April 2013

WP:FILMS Welcome

Hey, welcome to WikiProject Films! We're a group of editors working to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking, and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.

• The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for February has been published. March's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
• Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Announcements template to see how you can help.
• Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Misplaced Pages. Check it out!

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Script Theory

I've corrected the issue on the page. If you indent a paragraph, the section is put in a dotted-line box. I've deleted the indent, and also fixed the external links so they display the web address. TN‑X-Man 19:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm glad to see you're interested in contributing. If you have any other questions, drop me a line. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 19:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's see. When you put a link like this (www.google.com), nothing happens. If you put in the whole address, (http://www.google.com), it'll hyperlink the text. If you put the address between a <ref> and </ref> tag , it turns the web address into a reference, which is the superscripted numeral at the end of a sentence. References are a different sort of animal. In order to get the superscripted number to display as a reference at the bottom of the article, you have to insert a {{reflist}} template at the bottom. It's a lot of which to keep track, but if you have questions, drop me a line. On my talk page, click on "new section" at the top. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 21:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Help:Moving a page

This should be of help. Schmidt, 08:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Let them eat cake quote

Wran, Merci for finding the correct word (worst recourse) in the translation of pis aller. My brain had arrived at *recourse* but I was not satisfied with it. Frania W. (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Plato's Heaven (τοὐρανοῦ τινα τόπον)

you have presented as fact a personal and extremely dubious interpretation of a highly controversial and complex subject: to begin with plato wrote mostly dialogues and thus NOTHING that appears in them can be staightforwardly regarded as his judgment and , in fact, many scholars don't think he believed in a theory of of forms or ideas at all. He says many contradictory things concerning their status or existence in different dialogues. furthermore your references from the phaedrus, eg, are from a speech attributed to stesichorus, and thus even further removed from plato then most of socrates' uses of the term, many of which have nothing whatever to do with heaven, so if there is such a thing as a theory of ideas it can certainly do without it, and if the exist they don't necessarily constitute a world.Wran (talk) 05:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Dominique Strauss-Kahn

consensus be damned it is a BLP issue and it won't be going on the page. John lilburne (talk) 14:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

These "additions" are not appropriate. The link you used with the victims name was clearly intended as a way to "sneak" it into the article... so that's a WP:POINT problem right there. On top of that you piled original research, content sourced to a wordpress blog and a rant about WP censorship. --Errant 13:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There was no such clear intent nor did I do any original research: it's all in your prejudiced imagination. Stop interfering with the rights of readers to any publicly available info, it's totalitarian Wran (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The name of the alleged victim is not relevant to the article - and I suggest you discuss this on that talk page, unless you wish to be blocked for edit-warring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wran. I deleted your latest restore of personal details about the housekeeper. I appreciated your restore of a blank of the Paris Match material but that would have been restored in any case. I see you've got real form here. It's simply against consensus. There's a lot of things the various contributors to this article disagree on but one thing we are quite agreed on is that personal details about the housekeeper should not be included. You will be blocked I think if you continue like this. FightingMac (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

If you actually read the discussion you'd see that there is more of a consensus the other way; your dishonest efforts to censor info from readers that is widely available in the us media is contrary to the basic purpose of wikipedia and no more nor less than repressive tyrannical promotion of personal POV ; any deletion of properly referenced widely disseminated info can not possibly be anything else. I did no more than quote the ny times: what makes you think you know better than they do? The presumption should ALWAYS be in favour of info and against its suppression without clear justification Wran (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

So when six different editors ask you here not to add personal details about the alleged victim, you claim they are acting 'against consensus'? Frankly, all this talk of 'repression', 'tyranny' and 'censorship' only makes your arguments weaker. And no, the New York Times does not determine Misplaced Pages content policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Your response is incompetent: actually what these editors have been mostly concerned with is the revelation of her name which is not included here; nine editors have favoured adding basic personal details; the claim that exposing the authoritarianism and imposing of POV that you and your cohorts abusively push is a weakening of my arguments is preposterous and peurile; and yes the nyt is a better judge than you fascists Wran (talk) 02:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Go boil your head... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

... seconded ... and then pickle it ... so right go boil your head, pickle it, and when it and your ego has shrunk down a bit and then some, you might like to check out a few of these totally lame edit wars to rate your progress so far. Go stroke it up somewhere else. FightingMac (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The clear relevance of her personal info has been explained at length in DSK talk and it's also been pointed out previously that you are either lying about or unable to understand (which is it?) wiki policy. The basic issue is simple: either you believe in helping people by providing ALL relevant info so they can freely make their own judgments or you censor it to promote your own point of view; you are clearly favouring censorship in an utterly arbitrary and tyranical manner, including lying about consensus when the editors are 9 to 3 in favour of inclusion.Wran (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

From a practical point of view the consensus amongst contributing editors to the article is against you i.e. the editors who are currently adding and revising content and check the article's progress. I know them all, I mean by sight, and it's pointless for you to continue like this and you will eventually be blocked and unable to continue your important Macedonian edit warring (a favorite hunting ground of extremely lame edit wars) and stuff like that that you do on Misplaced Pages... of course you don't seem to be very pleasant and a rather arrogant sort of chap (so I assume) so why should any of us be arsed to hand you out a reach-round? Jerk it yourself. Last from me here, just trying to be helpful. Don't be surprised to find yourself blocked if you persist. FightingMac (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Only warning

If you place the name of the alleged victim of the Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case anywhere on the project, unless there is consensus to do so, or refer to other editors as "liars", "Fascists" or other derogatory terms, you will be blocked. Indicating that you intend to include the name, or otherwise challenge this warning be effected, will be responded to in the affirmative. Consensus is the proper application of policy, and not an imagined exercise in freedom of speech; you can either abide by it or not edit the article. Your choice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I consider this edit to violate both Misplaced Pages:Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point and Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing, and also Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith.

Kahn

Hi- please don't delete content without clear justification, as it's against policy; esp when it's way overdue Wran (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The entire paragraph was a direct quotation from the Daily Mail - a clear copyright violation. I presume that you are familiar with policy on that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

apparently you know nothing about copyright: firstly there are omissions clearly marked in the quote,and even if there were not excerpting continuous passages much longer than this are not necessarily copyright violations. this is clearly an example of fair use of which you could find much more extensive examples in both print and broadcast media all the time; furthermore, if you are incapable of understanding this the proper procedure is to: "Preserve appropriate content. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained and the writing cleaned up on the spot . . . Do not remove good information solely because it is poorly presented; instead, improve the presentation by rewriting the passage." (WP:PRESERVE). all you had to do was remove the quotes and re-word where you thought appropriate, but apparently that's too complicated for you Wran (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You are seriously suggesting that there are no possible copyright concerns in creating an entire section of an article from a single quotation? (And, incidentally, not stating who is being quoted, except as a ref link). That isn't 'fair use' as I understand it - and Misplaced Pages policy is clear: where there are possible copyright concerns, we err on the side of caution. As for me re-wording it, it has already been requested that this new section be discussed on the talk page, and if you thought that re-wording was appropriate, you should have done this yourself, rather than restore questionable material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I KNOW that there are no copyright concerns as I'm an expert; that you know nothing is clear from your use of the notion of "entire section" which is entirely irrelevant here as is the location of the reference. As for re-wording, you should have done this yourself according to wiki policy, rather than delete material you happen to personally object to. YOU are the one who created what should be a non-existent problem!Wran (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You may be an expert, but you aren't empowered to act as a legal representative for Misplaced Pages, I presume? On that basis, I see no reason to accept your assertions on the matter. And no, per Misplaced Pages policy, it is for those adding (or restoring) content to ensure it complies with requirements. In any case, where material is controversial, the correct procedure is to discuss on the article topic page, rather than edit-war. So cut out the crap, and discuss the matter properly in the appropriate place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

once again you are putting the cart before the horse:YOU are the one who took improper action by not rewriting if you objected to form; YOU are the one edit warring; I did ensure compliance; YOU need to discuss BEFORE deleting. you don't want to accept my informed assertions but expect others to bend to your hysterically idiotic ones! so cut the disingenuous BS and go salve your ego elsewhere Wran (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

there's really no point in talking to you as you can't accept(or grasp?) the simplest error that's pointed out to you and you constantly project your mistakes on others: you as usual have totally failed to follow policy while accusing others of not doing so; incessant badgering appears to be your only resource Wran (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Dominique Strauss-Kahn

Hi - this addition you are adding - diff imo , and I haven't investigated the copyright issue, its undue and weakly cited and repeatedly being in good faith removed - please stop adding it - open a discussion on the talkpage and seek consensus for something to be added but please stop adding this low quality addition without discussion on the talkpage. - Off2riorob (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

HELLO, you have this exactly backwards: one should discuss before deleting as is clearly explained in (WP:PRESERVE). also there is nothing the least bit low quality about it: many sources have noted it and no one remotely reliable has questioned; it's all a matter of public record and therefore UNCOPYRIGHTABLE Wran (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

"it's all a matter of public record and therefore UNCOPYRIGHTABLE". ROFL. If there could be better evidence that your claim to be a copyright lawyer was utter bullshit, I can't imagine what it would be. You are a liar (and a fool too, evidently). AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Edits to Alexander the Great

The burden is always on the adder:

• WP:BURDEN: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." (emphasis in the original).

HELLO, you have this exactly backwards: one should discuss before deleting as is clearly explained in (WP:PRESERVE): "Instead of deleting text, consider:...requesting a citation by adding the tag." Also there is nothing the least bit low quality about it: many sources have noted it; also you apparently don't know what opposite means: I DID NOT state it. it's YOU who appear to be wilfully directly contradicting policy: Please desist immediately, since deliberately acting against policy is consider vandalism.

Citation please

once again you are totally mistaken: I came up with NOTHING; rather you deleted something without justification. clearly you don't know anything about what you're claiming to address Wran (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I deleted material here, placed there by an IP number. Since you defended it, I assumed that you were endorsing it. If you are endorsing it, provide a source. Otherwise we can all load articles with unsourced opinions. What kind of encyclopaedia would that result in? Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 01:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

the point is that you began the problem; you need a source to delete material that is ALREADY THERE: you haven't come up with one. also you are completely illogical: lack of a cited source is not equivalent to mere opinion. the answer to your question is wikipedia, as most of its' assertions are unsourced. Wran (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

DSK again

I suggest you stop violating Misplaced Pages policy by repeatedly adding improper material to the infobox of the Dominique Strauss-Kahn article. Given your previous history regarding this article, I've no doubt whatsoever that at minimum a topic ban on this subject would be a racing certainty if a complaint was made at WP:ANI. If you continue to add material, rather than discussing it on the talk page (as WP:BLP requires), I will ask for appropriate action to be taken against you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• The part that's really hard to understand about the edit warring to insert "Jewish" twice into an infobox (diff) is that the label has no effect because the infobox does not have the fields used. I suppose it must be important to label this individual as you have done it five times in the last few days, but WP:BLPCAT is a must read for anyone wishing to avoid sanctions. Johnuniq (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I added nothing but rather only restored info contributed by others that is basic and of the nature to belong in an info box; material that had been deleted without justification by the perfectly named "grump"Wran (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
    • The justification is the policy cited - WP:BLPCAT - which makes clear that we don't consider such 'info' as 'basic'. You were also repeatedly asked to discuss this on the talk page, but refused, which is also against good practice. Given that the added material was invisible anyway, I'd suggest you were also violating WP:POINT. As for my username, at least I'm honest. If you adopted the same practice, what would your name be? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
      • If you actually understood what this "policy cited" that you supply said ( instead of misrepresenting it, as so often has been the case with you) you would retract what you'd said; but reason apparently has no effect on you. as usual you have the cart before the horse: if you think something needs discussing, do so; don't try to intimidate others into doing your job Wran (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:3RR notification

On Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Also per WP:BLP all controversial material must be removed. You cannot call him a rightwinger without a citation. I will refer this to WP:BLPN and WP:3RRN if your edit-warring continues. Δρ.Κ.  04:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I DIDN'T CALL him anything,I merely restored material that was improperly deleted, as I clearly pointed out and you avoided addressing; which material-- you would realize if you'ld understood what you had read-- does not call him a 'right-winger'(your own abusive highly-charged misleading pejorative term) either, but rather "center-left", an objective description of his position in the french political landscape; nor is there the slightest evidence that this is the least bit controversial, so your effort to apply WP:BLP is an ignorant mistake Wran (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

3RR

You are edit warring on wine. Discuss on the talk page, or be blocked. Your choice. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not warring, Prosfilaes is:HE eliminated contribution without justification and without discussion.Also try reading the talk page:I DID DISCUSS; YOU claim to be a precisionist: try living up to this up to now ridiculous claim!Wran (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

OK then, to be more precise: You, not others, have 3 reverts. You also have not left any recent comment on Talk:Wine discussing your reverts. No comments on Talk:Wine appear from you in your contribution history either. Therefore, you were edit-warring.

Furthermore, you insist upon restoring a bibliography entry that (a) is not used as a reference in the article and therefore cannot possibly belong in a bibliography, and (b) was added by a serial spammer who added the same exact reference to several articles. It was originally and properly removed as part of cleaning up after the spammer. Precise enough for you? ~Amatulić (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Instead of reverting on Great Books of the Western World, please respond on the Talk:Great Books of the Western World. Don't tell me to discuss in the edit summary; as I said in my previous edit summary, I left an explanation on the talk page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't tell me to not to tell you what I never did tell Wran (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Allan Bloom

With respect, I believe your "correction' is incorrect on one point: the source cited has "pettish" rather than your "pettyish" (which, in addition, is not in the dictionary). Admittedly, the source used is a secondary one. If you have in fact gone back to the original primary source, then I would of course defer, but in that case the citation itself should be changed. Best regards... Nandt1 (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

wholesale deletions on Wine

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rather than engage in an edit war, I am raising the edits of Wine at the appropriate venue. Encycloshave (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

Wran (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have not engaged in edit warring: I was threatened by Dennis Brown - 2¢ © on the wine talk page:"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"; and I responded by pointing out that this threat contains a lie, a verifiable and indubitable one, ie that of "refusing to engage". I began by Undoing revision 490523920 by Encycloshave because it contradicts a cited source and is false; he then violated policy by changing my reversion to the traditional text, without any any justification and confessing his ignorance: "unclear which of the four cited sources is contradicted"; thus HE was engaging in edit warring, not me. He and BarrelProof subsequently undid my restoration, which I repeat was the restoration of A LONGSTANDING TEXT THAT HAS SOURCES, whereas their changes were either completely unjustified or supported only by their personal POV comments, such as: " At least in everyday understanding, it seems rather obvious that fruit wine is commonly called wine"(it's not obvious, in fact it's false; and it contradicts a cited source, as I pointed out). So it's clearly who is edit-warring (he repeatedly undid properly sourced material without any justification that I had merely restored); and Dennis Brown - 2¢ © who has used gratuitous insults (calling a particular demonstrable lie a lie is not a personal attack, it's a neutral, objective statement of fact; but lying about someone as part of a threat is-- it's an example of "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence", WP:NPA#WHATIS), so they should be blocked Wran (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC

Decline reason:

Hmm, now where do I start with this one?

• Yes, you were edit-warring, which is plainly obvious from looking at the history of Wine. You don't get to claim you weren't just because you believe you were right - it's still edit-warring. When someone disputes your favoured version of an article, you should stop right there and discuss it on the Talk page - especially when you are clearly in a minority.
• Dennis Brown did not "threaten" you, he gave you a perfectly reasonable and civil warning.
• Your reply "your comment is a lie" is not acceptable. You might disagree with Dennis Brown, and you might even be right, but your first response when you disagree with someone else's judgement should not be to jump right to calling them a liar - you should have a read of WP:AGF. And carrying on your accusations of lying in your unblock request is only reducing your chances of being unblocked.
• Dennis Brown has not issued any "gratuitous insults".

The rest of your appeal is irrelevant, as that is a content dispute which needs to be discussed on the article Talk page. To be unblocked, you need to address the bulleted points above, and amend your approach to discussion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Wran (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not call him a liar: I pointed out out a specific verifiable lie; a "comment" is not a person; do you understand the difference? a false accussation against someone is not a matter of "judgement". falsely accusing me of "refusing to engage" is indeed "a gratuitous insult" Saying something is "plainly obvious" doesn't make it so: EXACTLY WHAT do you consider edit warring? and why is Encycloshave's activity not more so, since he was the one who began the elimination and continued reverting without justification?! he did not "stop right there and discuss it" Dennis Brown did "threaten" me in order to intimidate me from correcting his errors: "threat:An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment."(american heritage dictionary) how is it it a "perfectly reasonable and civil warning" to threaten someone else with punishment when it's your own conduct that fits the definition of misconduct: I cited a rule , which you ignored; you have only repeated unexplained accusations and displayed prejudice and personal favoritism in doing so in that you have not even attempted to explained how even one single act of alleged misconduct on my part comes under any wiki rule, and have failed to block Dennis Brown and Encycloshave Wran (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

"Something you said is a lie" is exactly tantamount to "you are a liar"; either way, you are casting aspersions on the other editor's honesty, and that's a personal attack. Regarding your edit warring, it is indeed obvious that you have been engaging in long-term edit warring at wine; you were warned, you continued, you were blocked. --jpgordon 15:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

.

Wran (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

so is it that you too are incapable both of anything other than parroting that what is clearly false is "obvious", and of distinguishing between a statement of fact and a personal attack? He cast "aspersions" on me by lying about my conduct and trying to intimidate me; my pointing out THE FACT of his lie was only a matter of self-defense and does not necessarily reflect on his honesty: he may only be incredibly stupid) Wran (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your talkpage access has been revoked, and I completely agree with that decision. Come back in a week and don't do that again; if you do, you'll likely be indeffed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Just a general bit of advice. I've read over your Talk page, above, and what I see is an extremely entrenched battlefield approach, frequently resorting to accusation and insult, and repeatedly refusing to abide by consensus. You have come very close to being blocked on a number of occasions, and I think you are lucky that the current block is only your second. You are starting to attract more attention to yourself now, and unless you are able to tone things down a bit, I see the probability of further and longer blocks rising. You might not welcome my advice, but you have it anyway - how it goes from here is really up to you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • once again you have merely repeated false accusations, offering no evidence: I never refused "to abide by consensus"Wran (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Repeatedly *failing* to abide by consensus then, if you wish to be pedantic about it - and I came to that conclusion by reading the evidence on this page and on the articles referred to therein. But no matter - I only offered my thoughts to try to help you, so you are as free to ignore me as all of the other people who have given you feedback on this page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Contested citation

To dig further into my "ingorance," note my question on the talk page, asking for clarification, as none of the citations seemed to be contradicted. As it turns out, the first citation of the article is the one he claims to be contradicted, which is inaccurate.Encycloshave (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

how many times to I have to quote the definition of wine from the article cited, "the fermented juice of the grape", for you to understand it? fruit juice is not equivalent to grape juice; furthermore if you read the article you would see that wine-like beverages cannot be made from other fruit juices without adding water and sugar, so your definition is false as stated Wran (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Wines made from fruit, grain, etc. are still considered types of wine, generally, legally, and commercially. Britannica acknowledges this by covering them in the same article, referring to them as "a kind of wine" and "fruit wines." And nowhere does "wine-like beverages" appear in the article. We are discussing this article (print version for ease of use), correct? While slightly different, the production process is not the issue. Even commercial wineries supplement their grape musts for various reasons, chiefly when the growing season has not been favorable to achieving ideal sugar levels. Please take a gander at Süssreserve, then cruise on over to chaptalization. Though controversial the practice is common for wine regions in colder climates. Cheers! Encycloshave (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

To assist with this disagreement on the definition of "wine", I have done a quick bit of research, and have uncovered the following...

Wicktionary...

• 1. An alcoholic beverage made by fermenting juice of grapes.
• 2. An alcoholic beverage made by fermenting juice of fruits or vegetables other than grapes, usually preceded by the type of the fruit or vegetable; for example, "dandelion wine".

The Free Dictionary...

• 1a. A beverage made of the fermented juice of any of various kinds of grapes, usually containing from 10 to 15 percent alcohol by volume.
• 1b. A beverage made of the fermented juice of any of various other fruits or plants

Dictionary.com...

• 1. the fermented juice of grapes, made in many varieties, such as red, white, sweet, dry, still, and sparkling, for use as a beverage, in cooking, in religious rites, etc., and usually having an alcoholic content of 14 percent or less
• 3. the juice, fermented or unfermented, of various other fruits or plants, used as a beverage, sauce, etc.: gooseberry wine; currant wine.

World English Dictionary (at Dictionary.com)...

• 1a. an alcoholic drink produced by the fermenting of grapes with water and sugar
• 1b. an alcoholic drink produced in this way from other fruits, flowers, etc: elderberry wine

Oxford Dictionaries

• an alcoholic drink made from fermented grape juice
• an alcoholic drink made from the fermented juice of specified other fruits or plants

Merriam-Webster...

• 1a. the alcoholic fermented juice of fresh grapes used as a beverage
• 2. the alcoholic usually fermented juice of a plant product (as a fruit) used as a beverage <blackberry wine>

Hope that helps -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

health benefits of wine

rather than edit warring, i have opened a discussion on talk - please join! Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Opinions on alcohol ranges

I have no problem with your correction to say wines "usually" range between 8-15% alcohol content but such a claim really needs a source. The only one I found was an informal analysis showing a distribution from 12-14.5% being the typical range. White wines are often under 8% too; it isn't common but isn't rare either.

Also your edit summary stating that wines above 15% ABV are "extremely rare" is false in California. It isn't rare here at all, particularly in the Shenandoah Valley area Zinfandels. The Zinfandel from my own family's winery, for example, has never been below 15% in the past 20 years. Usually this isn't a problem because the other flavors balance it out, but occasionally the wine is too "hot" compared to other flavors and must have some alcohol extracted. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

german wines are frequently 8-10, whites are rarely less according to standard reference works; as to reds it's conceivable that "extremely" is too strong, but sources,including the one you cite, have traditionally given 14 or 15 as upper limits, with rare exceptions. remember, I said "natural"; so how is your zinfandel made? do you add yeast, for example?Wran (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Completely natural, using only the wild yeast grown on the grapes, no yeast inoculation, no chaptalization. Most winemakers in California inoculate with commercial yeasts. Few are willing to risk using the natural wild yeast, because they lose control over the process. It's also possible that standard-issue winemaking yeasts have a lower alcohol tolerance. And chaptalization (adding sugar to boost the alcohol) is illegal in California, although it's legal in France.

The philosophy of my uncle (the winemaker) is "God makes the the wine, I'm just the custodian of the grapes." In one unusual year the Zinfandel went up to 17.5% — way too hot and unbalanced, requiring paying someone with a molecular filter to extract some of the alcohol without spoiling the wine by distilling it. Usually the fermentation stops between 15%-16% for those grapes. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Please stop adding inserting spurious "sources" to back up dubious/unreferences claims. Here you inserted a reference to the "Encyclopedia of Philosophy for Smartphones and Mobile Devices", a book whose content exclusively consists of articles available from Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source; see WP:RS. Please refrain from disruptive editing. --Omnipaedista (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)