Talk:Cristal (wine)

Lead crystal?
There seems to be some deliberation on whether Cristal is sold in a crystal (i.e. lead crystal) bottle. The bottle text itself mentions that the original version was served to the Russian Czar in a "crystal decanter", but makes no mention of the current bottle being as much. The article also makes the assertion that, to have a flat bottomed bottle (as Cristal demonstratably does) it would need to be made of lead crystal. And yet the article on lead crystal seems to insinuate that storing consumable liquids in lead crystal for long periods of time could (or will) lead to lead poisoning. Non of these viewpoints are reconcilable. Anybody know what is what? 82.198.152.34 (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction on "sec" versus "sweet"
-- In the French language, the word "sec" means dry, not sweet as stated in the article. If you check the article on Champagne, you'll see an explanation that " throughout the 19th century and into the early 20th century Champagne was generally much sweeter than what we see today." Therefore, I'm guessing that the Russians liked it DRY, not sweet, because that would be different from normal at the time.Em dee aitch 21:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no contradiction, although the terms used to describe the dryness (or sweetness) or sparkling wine are admittedly confusing . "Sec" is indeed sweeter demarcation than "brut", which is currently how this champagne is marked. -- Sslevine 10:10, 30 October 2007

coca cola
Is there a citation for Cristal Champagne being marketed by Coca-Cola?
 * -- No there isn't because Coca-Cola's Cristal brand is a mineral water, Cristal is owned and marketed by Louis Roederer.

translucent vs. opaque
-- umm, the word 'translucent' doesn't make sense in this context; I'm replacing it with 'opaque.'
 * Ummm, I think you're mistaken here. Wine bottles in general are translucent; Cristal comes inside a cellphane wrapper that protects it somewhat, but the bottle itself is not opaque like with Brut. See http://images.winecommune.com/lotImage/831831849.jpg or http://www.karstadt.de/shop/_im1/dbimages/we/9/3114080043059_g.jpg -- nae'blis (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hip Hop culture
I appreciate the attempts at sourcing but I don't think idle mentions in rap songs back up the claim of any special status of the wine in the Hip hop culture. What would be needed is a reliable source, independent, third party source that makes the direct connection that "Cristal assumed a place of prominence in Hip hop culture". Without that we have WP:OR synthesis that is making the connection. I am going to remove the OR claim and create a separate header for the "Trivia" mentions since they are sourced. AgneCheese/Wine 15:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent work on the source! Much better now. AgneCheese/Wine 08:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Does this section really need seven examples of reference to Cristal in rap lyrics? Three would be overkill; something like the first and sixth would be plenty. There's none at all at Hip-hop culture... it's basically way to much. Whereas hiphop is "big" on Cristal, Cristal is a Champagne and wine (not music) should be the dominant topic here. Now that we have Champagne in popular culture, we have a more natural home for this kind of info. I'm going to expand the "placement" and "music" sections there to incorporate stuff that appears in the hip-hop culture article and would suggest the couple of quotes I mentioned be moved from here to there. --mikaultalk 13:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Jay-Z thinks Roederer's comment was "racist"? Maybe he just rather not have his refined product being associated with crass individuals who wear baggy pants. Who cannot speak the English language properly, and a is violent criminal. Has he ever thought about that? Doubt it. Know'wa be sayin' dawg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.240.111 (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Those "individuals who wear baggy pants" made the company a shitload of money, so Roederer's comments were straight up stupid and bad for business. And not every rapper speaks poor English or has a criminal record, so the fact you stereotype everyone who raps for a living as such probably means that you're a closed-minded ignoramus like Roederer. Have you thought about that? Doubt it. Know'wa I'm sayin' dawg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.90.68 (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As always with Wikipedia, there's too much emphasis on pop culture and not enough on facts, history and background. The article reads like a blurb from People magazine or a segment of "Entertainment Tonight". People come here for factual information, not quotes from overpaid entertainers.


 * I came for factual information regarding overpaid entertainers. Is that the entirety of Roederer's comment? Why is there no mention of the Cristal boycott in the hip hop community? Why don't you sign with four tildes as per talk page guidelines? 203.139.196.109 (talk) 05:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

lead crystal bottles
The article on lead glass includes a small section at the end about how lead crystal containers leach lead into the liquids they contain. Is this still an issue with Cristal bottles, and if not why not? -- Arvedui (talk) 06:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the glass in the bottles in Cristal is lead crystal, so lead leaching shouldn't be a problem. I don't think I have ever heard of lead crystal used for wine bottles (as opposed to wine glasses). Tomas e (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverted dictionary material
I've reverted a section on dictionary and popular culture, however my reasoning is not the same as above in "Hip Hop culture". The problem is not that it was unsourced, nor that there were too many examples, nor that Wiki has too much emphasis on pop culture.

The issue is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and cannot possibly be a cross-reference to every use of a term in the media. The formal, professional linguistic studies on this often run to pages of material. That's too much to be included in Wiki.

Selected examples are a problem, too, because that implies some particular use of a word is somehow more important than others. Thus, if, for the sake of discussion, one cultural example were allowed, there would be no way to determine wither Jay-Z's usage was more important than somebody else's.

There's the question of whether a cultural reference is significant at all. Every brand that is sold must have customers. And therefore, a scriptwriter or novelist who is a customer will know the name. That has no encyclopedic significance. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 00:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see this as a WP:NOT issue at all. Cristal is a brand of champagne, notable enough for an encyclopedia article and plainly not an ambiguous or generic term for something else. Surely adding some pop culture info isn't a problem either. That much I hope we can all agree on. Sure, adding way to much of the pop culture angle is clearly undesirable, per previous discussion, but not having any mention at all is plain disingenuous. I'm not suggesting we use this as a source, but I do think this "lovetoknow" article has something approaching the right balance, if not the right "tone" for an encyclopedic entry on the subject. Maybe it should be main linked to the pop culture article for any expansion, but I had no objection to the last version here. --mikaultalk 02:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see what is meant by "not a dictionary", or the references to "linguistic studies", in respect of this short paragraph. The short section as it stood was not defining a word, or talking about the use of a word or a term. It was briefly noting that the brand has become associated with hip-hop culture, and at one point became the focus of a minor controversy, sourcing that material in part to the New York Times (in an article which goes so far as to assert that hip-hop "made" the brand - I wouldn't have that in the article itself, but it does flag up the significance of the connection). Prima facie this is worth noting in an encyclopedia article about the brand, assuming that the purpose here is to impart information about the subject. No we don't want a huge "in popular culture" list of trivia, but that's not what we have here. --Nickhh (talk) 11:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ps: oh, and the "C" in Champagne is usually capitalised, with all due respect to this rather pithy edit summary.
 * pps: glancing at the Louis Roederer page, that one really does need some work - full of straight lifts from Roederer sales material, which both makes it read like an ad as well as probably being a copyright violation of some sort, surely.


 * My original edit was to remove two long paragraphs about Hip-Hop culture of 250+ words. So actually I was speaking in part to my earlier edit here, . (It's difficult sometimes to know if the whole original text is under discussion.)


 * At any rate, the "dictionary comment" was referring to "Cristal became a part of the vocabulary..." Dictionaries such as the full Oxford English Dictionary give usage examples for each sense of a word -- as it changes historically and by region. ("Historical quotations.) That group knows how to use an already defined word in a conventional sense would not even qualify as a historical quotation. I.e., Wiki isn't a multi-purpose dictionary, and if it was, the Hip-Hop mention still would not qualify as a "part of vocabulary".


 * Even if there was an article The language of Hip-Hop -- these types of article do exist in the linguistic community -- Cristal might not qualify. Terms that were in the article would have broad, significant, historical use across a community. That one person used the word in a few songs would be irrelevant. If you want to create that article, go ahead, it would be an interesting experiment.


 * Wiki is not the place to note in detail "groups" that use a product. Cristal is a very expensive, upmarket champagne. Nothing more needs to be said. There are hundreds of social groups that are upmarket, but Wiki isn't a list of people who'd like to be considered upscale. If my famous fraternity or sorority made Cristal "2009's preferred champagne", would I get to list it in this article too? What about my local plumbers union?


 * Jay-Z decided to pull Cristal from his nightclubs because he was annoyed with Frédéric Rouzaud. Not encyclopedic. Business people feud all the time. Wiki is not the place to dignify their squabbles.


 * Rouzard doesn't imply that Jay-Z "made" the brand so much as he was worried that association Jay-Z would *HURT* it. That's the point of the NY Times article and the boycott. "...rap's bling-bling set could hurt the brand, Mr. Rouzaud was quoted as saying: "That's a good question, but what can we do?" But again, that just business feuding, and irrelevant to Wikipedia.


 * "In popular culture" sections are often trivia, and this is discouraged in Wikipedia. The fact that it was considered "The champagne of the Tsars" (http://www.mahalo.com/cristal) is of considerable importance to the development of the product, yet it doesn't appear in the Wiki article. A Hip-Hop star who takes a liking to it is hardly history, and not encyclopedic. Piano non troppo (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, OK, you seem to be misunderstanding the phrase "part of the vocabulary" and taking it a little too literally. In any event, two or three lines to note an association which is a little more relevant and high-profile than you seem willing to acknowledge doesn't seem extravagant or unencyclopedic to me - nor does it seem to be so to any other editors who have commented here or edited the article itself. The section has rightly been cut down, and can be re-written further if necessary, but there doesn't seem to be a need to remove it altogether. No one's arguing for the return of the earlier, longer version, so I don't see why that needs to be an issue. And please note, edit warring is indeed edit warring, whether you "intend" it or not .. --Nickhh (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ps: and yes, if The New York Times, USA Today, the BBC, Decanter and hundreds of other media outlets noted a high-profile association between your local plumbers union or a frat house and the brand - and if Roederer's managing director publicly acknowledged the link - that could well, in my view, merit inclusion in the article.

Another opinion I've expressed my thoughts above and on other talk pages in regards to my general aversion to trivia and pop culture reference. I personally think such material fails the "100 year test" and offers little if any encyclopedic relevance. That said, while my preference would be for the pop culture section to disappear, I nonetheless appreciate that it is written in a neutral tone and is well sourced. If consensus dictates that it should stay, at least it is presented in a manner that halfway attempts to look like it belongs in an encyclopedia. But again, I think overall the article has little use for trivia. That's my view. Oh and yes, Champagne (wine) is a proper noun when used in context of the wine from Champagne (wine region) and should be capitalized. Somewhere in this edit warring some made the mistake of removing the capitalization but it has now been corrected. AgneCheese/Wine 01:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * A hundred years? Do we have to wait that long?! As someone who does believe that WP is blighted by recentism, trivia and an unhealthy obsession with the worst of popular culture (and agrees 100% with the editor who wielded the axe here), I nonetheless do think this one is worthy of inclusion. It’s not a list of random notes about when and where Cristal has been mentioned in a lyric or in an interview by one or two rappers, but a brief summary of extensive reporting in serious, reliable, mainstream secondary sources of a pretty widespread phenomenon. And the articles are written specifically about that link – they are not simply making a brief passing reference to it in a report about something else. For example –


 * “Rappers idolize it” BBC
 * “Rappers have given Cristal street credibility (and sales) that advertising could never buy” ..  “Jay-Z [is] the Paul Masson of our time” San Francisco Chronicle
 * “Cristal, the champagne of tsars and rappers” The Times
 * “Hip hop made Cristal a household name” The New York Times


 * Furthermore, it’s a connection openly acknowledged by Roederer’s managing director, albeit seemingly reluctantly; an acknowledgement which in turn led to a fairly high profile (relatively speaking) dispute. Ninety percent of those people who have heard of Cristal will only know of it for precisely this reason. At the end of the day I don’t see a fundamental difference between this connection and that noted with the Russian Tsars, if you take a broader perspective on all these things. Recent events and themes shouldn’t overwhelm this place, but equally they shouldn’t be ignored – to not have anything about this just looks to me like a pretty glaring gap in the information about the brand.  In 25 years time, I’m sure Roederer will be releasing a Jay-Z cuvee, just as Pol Roger do their Winston Churchill. Well OK, maybe not. But it's not that far fetched.


 * Anyway, I was going to suggest something like the following, tucked into the history section, using some of the references above -


 * In the 1990s and 2000s, Cristal became increasingly associated with rap and hip-hop culture, with several artists referencing the drink in song lyrics and as part of their public image. The New York Times asserts that as a result, hip hop “made Cristal a household name”, while the San Francisco Chronicle noted that “rappers have given Cristal street credibility (and sales) that advertising could never buy”. However, in an interview with the Economist in 2006, Louis Roederer managing director Frederic Rouzaud said he viewed the attention from rappers with “curiosity and serenity” and that the company could not “forbid people from buying it”. The comments led to a dispute with rapper Jay-Z, who accused the company of racism.


 * Any more thoughts or suggestions for improvement? --Nickhh (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This is what Agne27 was referring to: "100 year test" (future speculation) -- In 100 years will anyone find the information useful?" (Evelyne Sullerot noted in Women on Love that social tastes change quickly. People 50 years apart are often unaware that "social norms" were ever any different than what they experience now.)


 * To people who love rap music, no doubt it's titillating to imagine their favorite stars drinking the best champagne. But is Wiki to record the drinking habits (however transitory) of every form of music? Their eating habits? Their favorite cars? Their favorite sex positions? That won't work. Encyclopedias and social columns are two different things. Providing a citation to unencyclopedic information doesn't change the fact that it's not encyclopedic. Piano non troppo (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, you're simply asserting that it is not encyclopedic. I, and others, disagree - that's kind of the point at issue. These things are matters of judgment and opinion, not fixed in stone in each case by individual fiat. And it has nothing to do with those who love rap music finding it titillating, or about eating habits or social columns or whatever. Indeed I don't care that much either way for rap music, or for Cristal Champagne as it happens. As noted above, it's about a widely reported phenomenon and cultural association that goes back over ten years. It's not simply "oh it was so-and-so's favourite drink", culled from a one-off lifestyle magazine feature - please read the links I've provided, if you haven't. Not many people remember or care that much about the Romanovs these days, but the historical association with the Russian royal family is rightly noted briefly in the article. Anyhow, I've said my piece at length now I guess (and my repsonse to the 100 years point was intended to be a rather feeble joke, btw). --Nickhh (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The section here has already been through the mill several times and the result has always been to keep what is, by all measures of notability, as non-trivial to the wine as the "Tsars favourite drink" suggestion, despite the 100-year idea. I do agree that the fact that it was considered "The champagne of the Tsars" is of considerable importance to the development of the product – it's a fair point and an interesting cultural connection... bling across the ages... in all seriousness, I see this as at least equally relevant to Cristal as the grape varieties used to make it. Please have a look at Champagne in popular culture for an overview of the special relevance that Champagne has in cultural matters. (and if you're not convinced that such an article should exist, also check this AfD) I'd go so far as to say if Cristal isn't worth mentioning in the context of its social impact, its not worth having an article on at all. I'd strongly defend it in an AfD though. --mikaultalk 23:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * IPC articles and sections are always controversial and there's definitely merit in weeding out the genuine cruft. I'd like to try to explain whe Chamapgne articles are a special case (no pun..)


 * I did look at the references, (three times now, in the case of the NY Times). "Slate" is not the greatest reference in this situation. The front page is a lot of POV articles with sensational headlines. The latest news story (about the terrorists who were going to use liquid bombs) was a rather interesting and informative article from The Guardian; Slate cut 4/5th of the content of someone else's work, leaving a newbyte. . The Slate champagne article is just some columnist spouting his words of wisdom. From what I've seen, I won't be reading Slate again. The New York Times article is from the "Fashion & Style" section, and it's another columnist giving his all-important update on the latest gossip.


 * In sum, the "boycott" is a minor business squabble, an offense taken at a statement that's racial/social/anti-Hip-Hop (what exactly is Jay-Z protesting?), and gossip reports. Wiki is not the place to give gossip updates about what all the cool people are drinking. Jay-Z buys Roederer, fires all the management, and puts Cristal in plastic bottles? That's encyclopedic. He makes a big stink in the media? Not even particularly interesting scandal reporting, to me. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 *  Well PNT, you may have read the NYT piece three times by now, but when I noted earlier that the article asserted that hip hop had "made" the Cristal brand, you responded by denying that Rouzaud had made such a statement - when neither the article itself nor I were suggesting that he had. And I never referred to the Slate article myself, so attempts to demolish that aren't really addressing the point: I cited other sources, including the BBC, and Decanter, and the ones I highlighted were only a quick sample from hundreds of others. But quibbling aside, you keep asserting that this is about "gossip" or what "the cool people are drinking". No one wants either "Champagne of the Tsars" or "Hip hop Champagne" to open the article, or for the page to include a silly list of "a bottle of Cristal can be seen in pop video X", or "Cristal is pop star Y's favourite drink" notes in a "Pop culture" section, but as noted, to not have even a brief mention of what - to stress the point again - is a widely reported and analysed phenomenon, cited to serious and mainstream secondary sources, just seems, well, odd. Simply asserting "it's not encyclopedic, because I say so; rap music and culture is trivial and ephemeral" is kind of missing the point, on several levels. No this isn't the most important thing about Cristal, but it's certainly one notable thing among several about this particular luxury goods brand. I genuinely don't get why even two lines briefly referring to the issue is vetoed and edit-warred out in its entirety, on the say-so of one passing editor. It does seem a little over-zealous. It's normally only in politics articles that you get this kind of inflexible insistence on what is "right" in terms of content or WP policy. Give a little, even if it pains you?
 * (@Mikaul) Ha ha, the thought that the Tsars were just as much masters of bling in their own way and their own time had crossed my mind as well of course. It's not that stupid a comparison really, as noted here for example. And, finally returning to constructive discussion about how to write up a comprehensive page about all the relevant points pertaining to this particular brand, my suggestion as well was to have it as two lines in the history section (the 1990s is of course now in the last century), rather than as part of a dedicated and signposted "popular culture" section. Hopefully that would help avoid (entirely legitimate) cruft-magnet fears? --Nickhh (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nickhh and company, it seems you are acting in (quite) good faith, and echoing your, we have invested enough time on this. You've added a link to champagne in culture, which itself is a fine idea. There are other things to be done in Wiki for intelligent editors of good faith. If someone feel like restoring the couple sentences' mentioned in this discussion...so be it. With Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I am glad to see that a consensus has been reached. I feel sorry for having contributed slightly to the argument for mistakes on my part--I was the one that added the two sentences after "Piano non troppo" blanked the hip-hop section--mainly, using the phrase "part of the vocabulary" which was misinterpreted too literally as "definition" instead of "adapting into the culture", and naming the section "In Popular Culture" which understandably has bad connotations on Wiki. I was originally just going to add the two sentences to the history section (as it is now) but felt that with the prior controversy over the info it would be best to keep it separate, and chose the title because it's a popular Wiki naming convention. Though, I would like to point out, Wiki isn't against popular culture sections as a whole as much as including random trivia within them, which is usually distinguished by having reliable secondary sources [NYT, BBC, etc] to prove notability, so I thought it would be okay. "In Later Culture" or the like probably would have raised fewer eyebrows. Anyway, glad it's been resolved.Flygongengar (talk) 03:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Rouzaud comments
The one article currently cited regarding Jay-Z's boycott,, indicates that the offending comments were in an Economist article,. However, those quotes are in text (notoriously difficult to interpret the nuance of), out of context of the greater conversation (which could be exculpatory or damning), interpreted by the journalist (by the nature of such things), and likely either a translation or spoken in a second language. Further, the comments as they appear seem like typically noncommittal PR blather, and don't clearly indicate any position by Rouzaud, positive or negative. Acknowledging that racism is often veiled, it still seems unsupported to encyclopedically identify Rouzaud's comments as negative, though room for negative interpretation by individuals does exists in my view, for what it's worth. I cited the Economist article and clarified the ambiguous nature of the comments. If other statements by Rouzaud exist supporting a negative view on his part, they should be referenced, and cited. Otherwise, while a backlash certainly existed, a negative attitude on Rouzaud's part has yet to be established. ENeville (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Cristal (wine). 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/20100324090433/http://www.decanter.com/news/86845.html to http://www.decanter.com/news/86845.html

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) 12:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

1876 date
The link to the original source stating an 1876 date of creation is dead. On the other hand, the origin story stated clearly links the wine to the Three Emperors Dinner, which happened 9 years earlier. Does anyone have better sources one way or the other? Lockesdonkey (talk) 06:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)