Talk:Chianti

From Talk:Aria of chianti classico
I come from Germany.

This articles ist my first article in English. I would like to add myself: I would like to translate slowly my article from German into English that is difficult. Would you like to help me for this article. I'm looking for further informations, because I spend often times my holiday in Tuscany. --Pz-engl 19:19, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi, Pz-engl, your text should go under Chianti. people will find it better there. Wetman 17:48, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi Wetman,

thank you for your answer. This text doesn't mean the vine. It is the countryside of this vine. I would like to add a link to Aria of chianti classico --Pz-engl 17:59, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I merged the info from Aria of chianti classico (basically a list of cities and a link to de:wikipedia pictures) into the Chianti page.Jorge Stolfi 19:14, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Chianti is an important wine, it deserves its own entry. I'd prefer to see each Chianti classification get its own entry than see it merged into an Italian wine category. The suggestion is as inappropriate as suggesting Bordeaux or Champagne was murged into 'French wine'. 84.69.120.56 17:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Given seeming lack of discussion and reasons to support any merger with Italian wine, I'm going to remove the request. --Joshua Boniface 16:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I have always thought that Chianti was pronounced kı'anti in English, as Hopkins pronounces it in the movie. This pronunciation is recorded in the SOED with no alternative. I do not speak Italian and it is possible (likely even) that the softer a is the only alternative in Italian but English is not Italian and is not obliged to adopt its pronunciations even for borrowed words cf. the Latin and French equivalents prima facie and bulletin. Orizon 08:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not familiar with how to write phonetically, but I have studied some Italian and according to my (Italian national) teacher, they pronounce all vowels the same, and diphthongs are the logical combination of the vowel sounds - 'a' as in 'bad', 'e' as in 'met', 'i' as in 'regime', 'o' as in 'bot' and 'u' sounds like 'oo'. 'C's are pronounced hard when followed by a, o or u, - 'cat', 'cod', 'cut', but sound like they have an h when followed by an e or an i, as in 'chess' or 'chimney'. If the c IS followed by an h, however, the sound changes again, and che sounds like 'que' in french, 'keh' in english, while 'chi' sounds like 'key' in English. So Chianti sounds like how you said - 'key-anty'. El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 23:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be pronounces 'key-ahn-tee.' As for earlier in your post, the 'a' is pronounced like the 'o' in collar. The 'e' like the a in cake; and the o like the oa in boat. ABart26 23:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've heard that the climate of the region growing grapes for this wine has changed, and the taste and quality has likewise changed. Does anyone else know anything about this? --SpacemanAfrica 20:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

In my edit of 24 march i wrote the names (Chianti classico, Chianti colli fiorentini etc.) with Italian spelling. Now 84.69.120.56 edited it to traditional capitalized english (Chianti Classico, Chianti Colli Fiorentini). Since i am not a native english native, what is the correct english spelling of foregn names?--FaZ72 15:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi FaZ72, In English books on wine, and indeed on labels of Chianti sold in England the Chianti names are written with capitalised first letters of each word of the name, although the spelling is Italian. If you feel that non-capitalised names are more appropriate do change them back. 84.69.120.56 18:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Mistakes
I corrected some geographical and historical mistakes. I think there are more...

--Kattivik 17:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Popular culture?
Shouldn't there be -some- reference to Silence of The Lambs? The quote containing Chianti is one of the most popular quotes from the movie (arguably -the- most popular). If for no other reason than, a person looking up Chianti because of the movie will know they are on the right page...? I know when I first heard the quote I didn't know what Chianti was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.18.34.174 (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, there really shouldn't be a reference to that film. Besides, in the book, it wasn't a chianti at all.  Stick to the facts. Belial33 (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That is probably why they mentioned the movie specifically, rather than the book, so they did stick to the facts. Quote shouldn't be in there though. 85.189.69.10 (talk) 09:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Quote should be in there as it is a very well known quote from a very well known film —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.83.255 (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Removed per Trivia sections Rees11 (talk) 23:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It's just been removed again by User:Eric. I must admit it does look like trivia to me also. But it should be noted that, as included at The Silence of the Lambs, the quote is itself somewhat notable: "AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes: "A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti." — #21". Just sayin' Martinevans123 (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I like that quote as much as anyone else -- despite my high esteem for census data -- but I just don't think it adds anything to an encyclopedia article about something as ubiquitous and well-known as Chianti. It would be like putting pop references to New York in the New York article. Eric talk 15:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * p.s. there is no mention at Vicia faba. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC) ... nor even at List of silent lamb dishes.
 * You scared me with that last link...thought for a moment I was going to grimacing at yet another regrettable Wikipedia article title, à la Car door or Headlight flashing. Eric talk 15:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Handkerchiefs are not be sniffed at, you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * (edit) (undo) (thank) (ironic thank) Eric talk 16:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Pictures
Just noticed, there are 5 pictures of the vineyards and general area, but not one picture of the actual subject of the article, the wine. Can anyone rectify this? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In particular, a non-copyrighted picture of a stereotypical squat bottle encased in a straw basket would be nice. I can't believe everyone else including me doesn't have a bottle like that lying around. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Aha. I found one on Commons. I put it in the article and rearranged the images into more sensible sections. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Attribution note
Some of the content in the Chianti Superiore is from the merged article Chianti Superiore. AgneCheese/Wine 05:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

sub areas
Hi all. Please note that


 * There is only one DOCG called Chianti in Italy.
 * This DOCG is divided in eight sub-areas (Classico, Colli Fiorentini, Colli Senesi, Colline Aretine, Colline Pisane, Montalbano, Montespertoli and Rùfina)
 * The biggest of those sub-area got a different rule of production (disciplinare) at the end of the 90's (Classico sub-area).
 * Chianti has been produced in the province of Florence since 1932.

As a member of Chianti council I unfortunately understand that everything is a bit confusing.

--Ildebrando (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello! We appreciate efforts to improve our text but you should be mindful of some very important Wikipedia policies. Of utmost importance is the policy of Verification. Everything that is added to Wikipedia must have a cited reliable source that can be verified. There was text that you removed (such as that pertaining to Greve being part of Cosmio III extension of his 1716 edict) that had reliable source citations that could easily be verified. Obviously these sources do not have to be online but there should be enough information given in the reference citation to facilitate verification. An example would be providing the ISBN and page numbers for book reference. The reference source of "DM 9/08/67" you provided does not provide adequate detail for verification and is a poor substitute for removing sourced text. Some of the edits you made to clarify things worked fine in accordance with the reliable source citations that supported the text. Other edits were more problematic since they removed sources without providing another reliable source that would contradict or disprove the original source. We understand that some people may have personal, "first hand" knowledge. However, the lack of verification makes that "first hand" knowledge original research which, by itself, is not appropriate for encyclopedia articles without a reliable source citation to go with it. While again, we welcome corrections and clarification to our articles, the need for reliable source citation that can verified is of paramount importance to Wikipedia. Please try to keep these policies in mind with any future edits to this or any other Wikipedia article. AgneCheese/Wine 22:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Agne!


 * DM 9/08/67 = Decreto Ministeriale, 1967 august 9th., it is the norm that rules Chianti DOC.
 * DM 5/08/96 = Decreto Ministeriale, 1996 august 5th., it is the norm that rules Chianti DOCG and it's sub-areas.

Those two norms should be the fundamental sources of the article. Second hand information, for example Andre Domine "Wine" are less reliable.

Regarding other sources, please note that it is impossible to find sources that demonstrate the not existing of something. For instance, the claimed Cosimo III extension of his 1716 edict simply DOESN'T EXIST. The fact that something is written on a book doesn't make it automatically true. We can easily find the 1716 edict (Bando Sopra la Dichiarazione dé Confini delle quattro Regioni Chianti, Pomino, Carmignano, e Val d'Arno di Sopra) while there is no track of the "extension".

I think that in order to have a reliable article we should avoid second hand sources.

--Ildebrando (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * copied from my talk Actually, according to Wikipedia policies, secondary sources are preferred. See WP:PRIMARY where it says "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." AgneCheese/Wine 15:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is confusion about this, and within the policy. Secondary sources is a vague term: for example I have been working on some award pages, it is definitely better to source them from The London Gazette than company web-sites and local papers (though these can provide additional information).  While Ildebrando is correct that "it is impossible to find sources that demonstrate the not existing of something" it should be possible to find sources that discuss that.  We should write  "XX discusses an extension to Cosimo's edictof 1716, which would mean... YY however, along with ZZ and WW contend that no such instrument was ever uttered..." Rich Farmbrough, 16:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC).

Rosso di Monteriggioni?
The bottle in the image of a "fiasco of Chianti" appears to bear a label reading "Rosso ... ???vino da tavola della Toscana??? ... Monteriggioni". As such, it is not a Chianti, where the word 'rosso' would in any case be tautologous. This needs to be verified, but I'm fairly certain that Chianti can no longer be sold in fiaschi anyway. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction
In the section "Chianti Superiore" I read


 * Chianti Superiore wines must be produced with the following grapes:
 * Sangiovese: min. 75%
 * Canaiolo Nero: max. 10%
 * Trebbiano Toscano and Malvasia del Chianti: max. 10%
 * Other authorized red grapes: max. 20%
 * As of 2007 white grapes were eliminated

But Trebbiano Toscano is a white grape. Something must be wrong here. Maproom (talk) 22:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like the anon who updated the page with the 2007 change didn't update the percentage. I don't have a recent source at the moment that gives the exact percentage so I'm going to remove that part for now. If anyone comes across with a good, reliable source feel free to add it back in with the revision. AgneCheese/Wine 22:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Chianti. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921053625/http://www.toscana2013.it/chianti-classico-gallo-nero-sponsor-dei-mondiali-di-ciclismo/?lang=en to http://www.toscana2013.it/chianti-classico-gallo-nero-sponsor-dei-mondiali-di-ciclismo/?lang=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Where is Chianti located?
Where in Tuscany is it located? In which province exactly? There is no place called "Chianti region". --2.246.109.181 (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Tuscany. See the map in the article, about halfway down. Eric talk 13:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chianti. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150122121031/http://www.chianticlassico.com/en/2014/02/chianti-classico-gran-selezione-carta-d%E2%80%99identita/ to http://www.chianticlassico.com/en/2014/02/chianti-classico-gran-selezione-carta-d%E2%80%99identita/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Foods containing tyramine
Shouldn't the article mention tyramine, perhaps in comparison with other red wines? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation
The Italian pronunciation is "KUH jan tee" ? Seriously?

Source for that alternate pronunciation, please?

My Italian relatives always pronounce it "key AWN tee". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Signed bottle after first chain reaction
This is a much bigger deal for chianti than it is for nuclear physics and if the men responsible for this landmark in science history recorded that a bottle of chianti rather than just "wine" was toasted with and signed (and still exists) than it is properly included here and not in the article about the Chicago atomic pile.

Incipit is currently misleading
I made a edit. it was reverted by User:Justlettersandnumbers, Chianti is not "any wine produced in the Chianti region". look at the article, it describes wines from the whole Tuscany. Misleading incipit should be avoided. If User:Justlettersandnumbers wants to correct it, help yourself, but the current incipit is not fine. If a generic user reads it it gets a wrong definition that the wine 1) is produced only in that area (it isn't, you have some type of Chianti wines outside that area, it's just a fact), 2) any wine produced in that area is a Chianti (nowadays, it is in't, you can produce whatever you want but only certain production can be called Chianti). Now (2) ca be debatable as too technical or pedantic and kept that way but (1) is clearly misleading. So please fix it. It's written in a way that can only generate confusion. I totally understand why it's crucial to keep that link to the original area in the incpit, that's why I suggested "hstorically" but you should not leave a sentence that extrapolated alone gives a wrong information. Alexmar983 (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is currently incorrect. However, the historical Chianti region, the current designated area for Chianti DOCG, and that of the separate Chianti Classico DOCG are three separate, not-entirely-contiguous and not-entirely-overlapping areas, so... it's complicated. Getting it correct in one sentence in the lead will be probably impossible, and require further thought. I suggest the entire lead should be rewritten to succinctly summarise the situation. There are also new Chianti Classico UGAs (Unitá geografiche aggiuntive, sub-regional designations) for Gran Selezione we should probably mention, coming into effect this decade, as well as the new 90% Sangiovese requirement from 2027. — Jon (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ,, I think I could have expressed myself better in my edit summary for that revert. Perhaps I should have said something like "I agree that this needs to be improved, but I don't think your edit has achieved that" (which is roughly my opinion). I suggest an opening sentence along the lines of "Chianti is a Tuscan red wine made principally from Sangiovese grapes" – and then get into some (very general) detail in subsequent sentences. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * but of course the original area should be cited and linked in first sentence, I have no doubt about it. Even the Treccani source I have used does so before adding more details. I think adding "historically" does that trick in the end, because it implies that there is more now.--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * My edit was thanked at a certain point... I see some comment about the future here but my edit was improving the version, and it was sourced. So either someone improve it in some different ways, or my version is still better than this one and people can keep it and change it later... that's more pragamatic. We don't need revert, we need small steps to a better version... that edit was in the end a decent step. We can't keep a clearly misleading intro. In no scenario keeping something clearly wrong makes you come quicker to an ideal complete version, you need the core content of the page to be updated before producing the best possible intro and this takes months. In the meantime shouldn't we have a slightly better intro?--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * So, if I understand the discussion, at present the first sentence isn't true. If instead of "A Chianti wine ... is any wine produced in the Chianti region of central Tuscany" it said "Chianti ... is a wine of defined type produced in the Chianti wine region of central Tuscany", would that be true? Or maybe "Chianti ... is a wine of defined type produced in a delimited region of Tuscany", would that be true? If we added "red", would that be true? I'm just hoping to be able to read an accurate first sentence :) Andrew Dalby 12:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes Chianti wine, historically produced in the Chianti region, is traditionally known for its red hue. However, nowadays, these certified wines are produced in multiple delimited subregions throughout Tuscany. Restoring my suggestion will give you a better starting point if you want to further improve the incipit. --Alexmar983 (talk) 04:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Quick reminder that the incipit is still misleading... --Alexmar983 (talk) 03:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Consorzio Vino Chianti
Just to inform you, Draft:Consorzio Vino Chianti is progressing towards becoming a comprehensive article. I plan to publish it in within the next 1-2 weeks after ensuring it's properly sourced. This is a small step towards enhancing the overall quality of this topic here on enwikipedia. Quick reminder: another improvement would involve fixing the introduction (as discussed in the previous thread on this page). Alexmar983 (talk) 06:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Done! It's on the ns0.--Alexmar983 (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)