Talk:Israeli wine

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

Neutrality
I believe this article is not neutral, indeed, I believe that it reads a bit like propaganda. For instance there is no prizes section in the Australian or French wine articles. There are other examples too.Squall1991 12:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are definitely elements of bias in this article. The use of the word "vibrancy" in the intro is a good example of that. However, French wine is known worldwide as the stereotypical paragon of good wine, and Australian wines are also well-distributed and well known. Israeli wines are not - I think that the vast majority of people would be surprised to learn that there even is a significant production of wine in Israel to begin with. Thus, perhaps the use of a prizes section to help indicate the rising popularity and prominence of Israeli wine is not entirely unjustified, no? LordAmeth 13:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that the prizes section is unjustified but I believe that it could be written into other parts of the articleSquall1991 03:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Nableezy edits
Recent edits by the user have introduced information into the article that appears to be from the subsequent offline references. I suspect that the two references do not mention the information that was added and the current version is misleading. --Shuki (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The article implied, actually outright said, in several places that the Golan Heights are in Israel. That is incorrect. In no way are the corrections made "misleading".  nableezy  - 02:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

"Disputed" Golan
The Golan Heights region is not disputed, because Israel does not formally claim it. The Golan Heights Law stops just short of actual annexation. &mdash;Ashley Y 14:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And its not a territory "between Israel and Syria" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


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

To Agne27 - sub region of Galilee
The golan is not a sub region of the Galilee. It is only by Israel considered to be a sub region.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * From a wine perspective, Golan Heights is a sub-region of the Galilee. This is how it is presented in our reliable sources. AgneCheese/Wine 15:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have Agne's sources in front of me, but I'd like to point out that in many countries (at least in Europe) it's not uncommon to have wine regions defined in a slightly different way than politicial/administrative regions. Tomas e (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Defining the Golan Heights as a winemaking sub-region of the Galilee is fine, as long as it is made clear elsewhere in the article that the Golan Heights is in fact regarded as occupied territory. This is the viewpoint of the entire world, save Israel.  T i a m u t talk 19:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the reliable sources relating to wine world (including those written and published by French, American and British authors) describe the Golan Heights as an "Israeli wine region". Please keep in mind, we are writing these articles from a wine perspective, not a political one. AgneCheese/Wine 19:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Calling the Golan Heights as "Israeli wine region" is quite different from calling the Golan Heights a "wine region in Israel". In wine articles, distortions of geographical and political facts are not necessary.  T i a m u t talk 19:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Agne27. I see you have again removed information regarding the Golan Heights occupied status. I have added more information from a wine source on this subject in this edit. While you claim this is irrelvant to wine source, this article seems to indicate otherwise. I hope you will respect this new addition and reconsider your deletions of Israeli-occupied territories before the mentions of Golan Heights and West Bank.  T i a m u t talk 19:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * At least your addition and references maintained a wine-based focus. That is fine and much better than a strictly political addition. AgneCheese/Wine 19:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for welcoming the contribution. I have added more material, from another wine article and a followup article to the Sweden labelling system in a non-wine source. I hope they meet with your approval as well.  T i a m u t talk 20:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Going too far in censoring out political information
Okay, I understood the point of sticking to wine sources. But once good wine sources discussing the political issues surrounding the Golan Heights were found and added to the article, they were still deleted. I've restored the material, since it is reliably sourced and relevant (the article is in a wine magazine after all, and does discuss Israeli wine production in one of the regions we discuss in this article). I expect that it will be retained and that a substantive discussion will be undertaken to discuss how and if to modify it to meet any concerns articulated here regarding why it is inappropriate.  T i a m u t talk 21:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The point isn't finding sources relating to wine. It's about fidning CONTENT relating to wine. You can put that edit in the Golan Heights article if you so wish. It has absolutely nothing to do with this article, "Israeli Wine". Just because the source is a wine article, doesn't mean the content is relevant. And as it stands, the content is absolutely irrelevant in this context. I have removed the matierial because there is no need to host a discussion when something so clearly wrong is added to an article. You asking to have a discussion about this would be like me posting a paragraph about the demographics of Tel Aviv in an article about Beirut, with a Lebanese newspaper as a source, and then demanding that it stay up until we discuss it and reach a consensus.Breein1007 (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Tiamut was making a good effort to bring in relevant wine related content that would be appropriate for this article. How Israeli wine from the Golan Heights is labeled and marketed is appropriate to include in this article. While we need to be careful about WP:UNDUE weight in terms of focusing exclusively on Sweden's response, I would support including some of those details in the article. While not perfect, Tiamut's edits were a good starting point and shouldn't be reverted wholesale. AgneCheese/Wine 22:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Addendum: After looking more closely at the edits, I realized that there was more content added by Tiamut after I last reviewed the article and that Breein didn't do a wholesale revert. I apologize for jumping to conclusions there. That said, removed paragraph about when/if the Golan Heights is returned to Syria is a little gray. As it was written, it did tilt a little more to the political side then ideal. However, it would obviously affect the Israeli wine industry if the Golan Heights were returned so the topic does merit some coverage in this article. If the paragraph was rewritten to talk more about the impact on the Israeli wine industry, rather than just talk about the political situation and what might happen, then I would support its re-introduction. AgneCheese/Wine 23:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input on the subject, Agne27. I agree with you about the issue of labeling in Sweden, like you said - I didn't delete that section.Breein1007 (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Agne's second point, which is that while the material removed could be rephrased, it is absolutely relevant, given that any transfer of the Golan back to Syria would impact the wine industry. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to introduce this information in a way that would be more appropriate to the focus of this article? Or should I be bold and give it another shot?  T i a m u t talk 08:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - We could say: "with the future of the Golan Heights uncertain, so is that of the wine industry in the region"


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


 * That's a good start. However, I think it would be better to be a little more specific because for those unfamiliar with the subject, the very vagueness of the statement imparts little in the way of information. The source I was using mentioned that the area might be returned to Syria as part of a land-for-peace deal and that this had been discussed in the 1990s and 2000s by different governments. Can we include that idea and leave it that? The quote from the Haaretz wine critic that I originally included could be simply omitted. Does that work for you?  T i a m u t talk 08:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * More specifically, we could merge your sentence and one of mine so that it reads: Israeli governments in the 1990s and 2000s have entertained the possibility of returning the Golan Heights to Syria as part of a land-for-peace deal. With the future of the Golan Heights uncertain, so is that of the wine industry in the region.  T i a m u t talk 08:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Tiamut, your second suggestion -- as you worded it: "Israeli governments in the 1990s and 2000s have entertained the possibility of returning the Golan Heights to Syria as part of a land-for-peace deal. With the future of the Golan Heights uncertain, so is that of the wine industry in the region." -- is fine by me. -- nsaum75  ¡שיחת! 08:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nsaum75. Half of it is your wording though, so I can't take all the credit. :) Perhaps I'll wait a bit to see what others involved think before proceeding since there was some edit-warring over this previously.  T i a m u t talk 09:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would supoort the above wording. AgneCheese/Wine 15:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To err on the side of caution sounds good to me. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 09:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * While I disagreed from the beginning that this had anything to do with this wine article, if people are going to insist on inserting it and qualifying it with a vague reference to the wine industry, then I would accept the above wording if we inserted the words "parts of" after "possibility of returning", because no government has made a serious indication that they were planning on handing the entire Golan Heights to Syria on a platter. There have been indications that governments were prepared to negotiate with Syria over the future borders, implying that they would be split up. Breein1007 (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting point regarding "parts of vs whole" of Golan Heights. Does anyone have WP:RS that would clarify this? In particular, I would be interested if there is anything commenting on any uncertainty of Israeli wineries in the Golan Heights on their future? AgneCheese/Wine 18:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The article I used as a source for the above proposed text discusses this issue i greater detail too. See here for more. We can certainly expand the information on this issue per what is in this source, among others.  T i a m u t talk 21:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Another source is this one: Grapes on the Golan: Israel's boutique wine industry is finally taking off. But now peace talks may threaten their prospects.  T i a m u t talk 21:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
We don't have to have anything about peace between Syria and Israel, it doesn't belong here. The problem is that it can not say in this article that Golan is a part of Israel. "The vast majority of Israeli winemaking takes place in the north, including the Galilee, Sharon Plain, Samson, and the Golan Heights. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In that regard it is not saying that the Golan is part of Israel but rather that Israeli winemaking takes place there. AgneCheese/Wine 15:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that it can still be read as if "the north" is referrig to the north of Israel. It also seems to still imply that these regions are in Israel. They clearly are not, though they are Israeli-occupied territories. I understand your reticence at addressing the political circumstances at every turn in a wine article, but it is rather important not imply that these are geopolitically part of Israel given that the entire world rejects that and Israel itself often mentions its intention to return these areas to the Syrians and Palestinians as part of a peace deal.  T i a m u t talk
 * Israel mentions no such intention. The Golan Heights have been annexed and as far as Israel is concerned, they are part of Israel's permanent borders and will remain that way in the future. If peace negotiations with Syria are successful with Syria in the future, you may expect to see parts of the territory given to Syria in exchange for something else, but how does it make sense to claim that ultimately, Israel will just give it up for "peace"? That's not negotiating, that's unilateral disengagement - something the Israeli government and people have learned does not work, the hard way. Either way, the current wording doesn't suggest that those areas are in northern Israel. They simply imply that wine making takes place further north. This is the best wording, and certainly more appropriate than the recent suggestions made that incorrectly implied that the Galilee and Sharon Plain are occupied territories. While I would love to assume good faith, I find it hard to believe that certain editors did this accidentally, as it seems to me that some of these people do support the ideology that any and all Jewish land in the middle east is occupied territory. Regardless, going back to that old wording is unacceptable. Breein1007 (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please respond to the proposal above that Nsaum75 ad Agne have said is acceptable to them? The rest of your post has a lot of WP:SOAP in it. No one is suggesting to restore the "old wording" (I don't eve know what you mean by that). Perhaps you might consider offerig new suggestions that address the concerns of your fellow editors who are editing in good faith and do not deserve to be maligned. Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 18:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Supreme Deliciousness is suggesting to restore the old wording, because he is the one who was edit-warring that area a couple of weeks ago. The old wording that I am referring to was the one that until a few days ago implied that the Golan Heights, Galilee, Samson, and Sharon Plain were occupied land. I won't offer any new suggestions because I am not the one who has a problem with the current wording. I think it is a fair compromise and a good product of compromise that has resulted in NPOV wording. If anyone has a problem with it and wants to suggest new wording rather than reverting to old, inappropriate wording, I would be happy to look at the suggestion and make my comments. Breein1007 (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I suggest removing "in the north" and simply listing the different sub-regions. That might help avoid the implication that this winemaking is being done in the north of Israel. That's just for starters, but I believe it would begin to help in addressing part of the issue introduced by this wording.  T i a m u t talk 21:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that 'the north' is an important specification given the suitable climate. Frankly, if Israel or an Israeli company owned land in Cyprus, I think that it would also be okay to mention that 'Israeli winemaking' occurs there. And lets say that a peace treaty is signed and the Golan is leased to Israel, would the wording need to be changed? --Shuki (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The "climate" section is a better place to mention climate, so I've added that observation to that section. I think the "region" section is difficult enough without adding a crystal ball in there too... looks to me like we have a stable compromise there, given the current situation. mikaultalk 23:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

AFriedman, please stop removing that Golan is occupied as you did here, that is censorship. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There's support for the reversion of that particular edit. See page history.  -- AFriedman   (talk)  05:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Controversy section
I added a section about controversy: and it got reverted, why cant this be in the article? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * While I can't speak for the editor who removed it, I will say that the writing and tone of your section was very inappropriate for this article. It was something that was more fitting for the Golan Heights article itself and again, overly political. The efforts of Tiamut and Nsaum above to keep the content within a wine perspective are accomplishing some of your goals but not steering this article so completely off course into politics. I would follow their lead. AgneCheese/Wine 15:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it was WP:UNDUE.--Shuki (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is coverage of this subject is multiple WP:RS. Perhaps rewording it using some of these sources would help:


 * Syria protests Israel's gift of Golan wine to UN staff in Haaretz
 * Syria protests Israel's 'illegal' Golan wine in Al-Arabiya
 * Syria protests Israel Golan wine gift to UN staff in YNET  T i a m u t talk 21:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Dubious
In the history section, there is reference to "early Israelis" when discussing a historical period in which there were no such people. There is also reference to "Israel" in Roman times, when the land was known as "Palestine". Does anyone have the book from which this information was taken? Can the passages in question please be excerpted and provided here? Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 19:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at the book, it should be Israelites rather than the modern term Israelis. It has been corrected. AgneCheese/Wine 19:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As for quotes that reference "Israel" versus Palestine, there are several passages that are way too lengthy to type all of them out but some of the terminology includes...
 * "The Israel of Biblical times is regarded by historians and archeologists alike as the 'cradle of vineyards and wine,' the home of a wine industry that was also much admired by the Greeks and Romans." (pg 742 1st paragraph)
 * "In ancient times, Israel lay on the 'historic grape route' which later became the wine route from Mesopotamia to Egypt" (pg 742 6th paragraph)
 * It is clear that the source is using Israel in reference to the biblical Land of Israel and subsequent historical Kingdoms of Israel, including the client kingdom ruled by Herod the Great (37 BCE - 4 BCE) during Roman times. I'm not sure which wiki-links would be best used to clarify this sincere are several entities that have been called "Israel" in one way or the other. Though considering the source makes no reference to "Palestine", I'm not sure if that would be appropriate to use. AgneCheese/Wine 20:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to present the relevant passages. Many of ths ources I have seen that discuss wine-making and its history in this region use the word "Palestine". However, given that this is an article about "Israeli wine", there is no need for them to be mentioned here. Perhaps I will start an article on the history of winemaking in Palestine at some point.  T i a m u t talk 13:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oooh, that would be awesome if you get the chance. I would very much look forward to reading that. :) AgneCheese/Wine 17:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Lots of censoring
As with every Wiki article mentioning Israel, the article is heavily censored politically and historically, to the point where inserting a simple next to a historical claim it's removed immediately.

Like it or not, facts are facts. Whether they align with our interests or the image why try to present, or not. Removing citation tags, or reverting sections with history related to the article that maybe don't shine the best light is censorship, it's manipulation of facts and realities. --Abderrahman (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Israeli 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/20081005082434/http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/DocView.asp?did=1000299213&fid=1725 to http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/DocView.asp?did=1000299213&fid=1725

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) 16:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Israeli 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/20110724182214/http://www.norwatch.no/200809211130/english/other/sells-wine-from-occupied-area.html to http://www.norwatch.no/200809211130/english/other/sells-wine-from-occupied-area.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110203112940/http://www.danielrogov.com/EN_usd.php to http://www.danielrogov.com/EN_usd.php

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) 17:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Israeli 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/20110909120840/http://www.wines-israel.co.il/len/apage/3666.php to http://www.wines-israel.co.il/len/apage/3666.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605234252/http://www.oukosher.org/index.php/common/article/dear_rabbi_how_do_you_make_kosher_wine/ to http://www.oukosher.org/index.php/common/article/dear_rabbi_how_do_you_make_kosher_wine/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090702235902/http://www.dalton-winery.com/content/dynamic-web-content.aspx?contid=17 to http://www.dalton-winery.com/content/dynamic-web-content.aspx?contid=17

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) 20:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Palestinian Israeli wine
An addition I made to the page was twice reverted by User:Debresser
 * 1st revert There is a separate article for this
 * This is a false, equivocating or misleading edit summary. The only other article we have on this topic is Palestinian wine, which is overwhelmingly dedicated to the growth of a modern wine industry in Mandatory Palestine, with due regard to the important role played in it by Jewish entrepreneurs. There is just a short addition concerning Palestinian wine-making in Taybeh in the West Bank. The article's focus is on wine producing in the geographic area of historical Palestine, and has no ethnic discrimination.
 * The term Israeli wine in English refers to wine produced in Israel. It does not refer to wine produced by Jewish Israelis, but to that produced by any Israeli, Jewish or  Palestinian, as the case may be. To exclude cases of Israeli Palestinians making and marketing wine in Israel is to practice an ethnic discrimination ignoring the identical nationality of the producers, while emphasizing their ethnicity, arrogating to Jewish Israelis a monopoly on Israeli wine, as if Jewish and Israeli were interchangeable.


 * 2nd revert ‘This was removed, with explanation, so per WP:BRD should not be restored without obtaining prior consensus on the talkpage.’
 * Have you read WP:BRD? It is not wiki policy. It is an optional,  one of several suggestions as to how to avoid edit warring.

"Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen."
 * Please desist from your longterm practice of reverting every other edit I make on Jewish topics, esp. citing patently spurious grounds. If you have occasion to disagree, use the talk page. Your silence there after these reverts, is also notable. The implication is that I can edit that topic area only with your personal permission or consensus. And please provide rational and policy-based reasons in those rare cases where my work here might offer grounds for a challenge. Nishidani (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I see. Well' let's hear the opinion of other editors here as wel.
 * Please remove all personal attacks, lies etc. from your post. Like e.g. "Please desist from your longterm practice of reverting every other edit I make on Jewish topics" and other aspersions you try to cast on me. Debresser (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * My edit summary said "This was removed, with explanation, so per WP:BRD should not be restored without obtaining prior consensus on the talkpage." It does not matter whether WP:BRD is a policy, guideline, or just good advice. You should indeed obtain consensus before edit warring. It is as simple as that.
 * Please also notice that when you added the same material a second time, that was edit warring. Debresser (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have asked you to explain the meaning of your edit summary in your first revert. You haven't. I'll repeat. What page is this referring to?
 * 1st revert There is a separate article for this
 * Rephrasing to make sure you grasp the point, what separate article exists for wine made by Palestinian Israelis in Israel?Nishidani (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Since I have had no response to this, I shall be putting the text back. I have complied with all wiki procedures, waited three days, have had no response to the substance of my argument that the revert was not policy-grounded, and based on a flawed edit summary whose rationale remains mysterious. Wikipedia is not a holding ground to quarantine edits someone may dislike until a consensus emerges when only two people are editing. If a cogent reply comes forth explaining what article is more appropriate to 'Palestinian Israeli wine' than this, I might reconsider.Nishidani (talk) 09:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * And you were reverted. It is not enough that you agree with yourself. You need to show consensus for your recent addition. You know this very well, so I can only assume you deliberately are provoking an edit war. Debresser (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not enough that you agree with yourself.de te dictum loquitur.
 * 'You need to show consensus for your recent addition.' No, inquire of any administrator if consensus is required to an edit to any page, and they will inform you it is not.
 * You have not responded to my request to explain the obscure justification of your initial revert. Since it remains, therefore, unmotivated, it was flawed, and that is why the text removed can be restored. It does not require a 'consensus' when you are the only person who disagrees with it. Consensus does not mean the 'permission' of some editor.Nishidani (talk) 10:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Your latest post shows how much you are ignorant of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Much like your edits show how much you are ignorant of the manual of style and proper use of markup. Debresser (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No consensus is not a reason to revert. I find the addition to be totally on-topic, and I cant quite get what the argument against it is. Your original edit summary is that there is a separate article for this material. You were asked what article that might be and have yet to respond to that.  nableezy  - 18:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No consensus for a recent addition is a perfect reason to revert. As I said, let's see what other editors hold on this issue. I understand Nishidani's argument, and would like to see what other editors say about it. Debresser (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:Consensus which privileges rational argument not head counts. Please reply to the question I asked. You have failed several times to explain the rationale in policy terms of the revert you made. Please provide it.Nishidani (talk) 10:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You use irrelevant arguments, as you are want to do: state the irrelevant obvious to create the mistaken assumption that you are right.
 * We all know this is not about WP:NOTVOTE. This is about the fact, that your recent edit was opposed, so you now need to show consensus. So far nobody has agreed with you. So you have no consensus.
 * The fact that you hold that your argument is correct, obviously, does not mean that you have "consensus". The word "consensus" implies that others should agree with you. So far, I have disagreed, and literally nobody has agreed with you yet. Ergo, no consensus. Ergo, you should not repeat your edit, as that would be edit warring. Debresser (talk) 13:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You are required to show why my argument is incorrect, if you disagree with the edit, revert and cannot explain your revert on the talk page. If you cannot, then you are not seeking a consensus. Please answer the question. Not to do so is symptomatic of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT.Nishidani (talk) 13:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ps. I think calling Nableezy 'nobody' ('So far, I have disagreed, and literally nobody has agreed with you yet.') is a rather casual insult. Please focus on the fact that he agrees with the edit, and that the edit has been properly restored to the page. To elide that again would, indeed, be clear evidence of edit-warring.Nishidani (talk) 13:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No insult, and please refrain from making accusation that are not based on facts. He never agreed with you. He only asked for my reasons to oppose the edit. Debresser (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "'I find the addition to be totally on-topic' User:Nableezy"
 * "'He (Nableezy) never agreed with you.'Debresser"
 * Just out of curiosity, why do you so consistently ignore the plain evidence before your eyes of what other editors write?Nishidani (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Because I would like to see at least editor who is not part of your usual clique who agrees with you. At that moment, I will surrender my opposition immediately. Debresser (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Another personal attack. Had any number of editors who agree with the idea I should be reverted on sight backed you, would you have complained that the agreement was dubious because the confirming editor backed you? No. The question would never have arisen.Nishidani (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Debresser, what exactly is your policy based reason for opposing the addition?  nableezy  - 20:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As no answer has been forthcoming, and stonewalling remains the only basis for an objection, I see no reason why the material in question should not stand. If youd to challenge it you are required to provide reasons.  nableezy  - 18:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Following sources
I reverted this because of its rewriting of the source replacing 'Arab' with 'Christian.

The source states:- "Yet the names of grapes used to make wine in the mid 19th century are known. They included varieties such as Hevroni, Dabouki, Marawi, Halbani, Sharwishi, Hamdani, Jandali amongst the whites and Zeitani, Karkashani, Razaki, Karashi, Baladi amongst the reds. Most were grown in the Bethlehem or Hebron areas primarily by Arabs and the names reflect their Arab origins. These varieties were sold to the few Jewish wineries, in particularly in the Old City of Jerusalem. However they are not used by mainstream wineries, apart from the Cremisan Monastery, which still uses them."

Dovid I would appreciate if you reconsider your reintroduction of the word 'Christian' because otherwise it would be an inference we are not allowed to make (though I'm certain Christian did take part in wine production). As it stands, with this source, the word 'Christian' is WP:OR unsupported by the source, but feigning to be so. Thanks in anticipation. Nishidani (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the source. ✅. Debresser (talk) 09:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry and mass removal of reliable sources.
This edit, SJ, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_wine&diff=next&oldid=1011827635 Restoring, source used is not a RS and also partly false. (whoprofits is an advocacy organization)] is:-
 * Tantamount to meatpuppetry for an editor banned from that page.
 * The edit summary is misleading. You didn’t ‘restore’ anything. You made a revert that gutted the page
 * You did not examine what was removed since your ostensible reason was that ( a long documented research paper surveying the topic, written by an NGO (we accept them)) failed RS, and, also that you thought its content false (your opinion is irrelevant) I.e.
 * Forbidden Fruit: The Israeli Wine Industry and the Occupation Who Profits? April 2011

(1) Miriam Berger, 'Arab wineries in Israel tell of the Palestinian struggle in each glass,' The Guardian 4 October 2019
 * In reverting back to the disembowelled text, you failed to justify the erasure of numerous other sources invariably accepted as RS on wikipedia-

(2) Dalia Hatuqa, ‘Canadian sues over wines labelled 'Product of Israel',’ Al-Jazeera 31 October 2017

(3) Raphael Ahren, 'Settlement wines cannot be labeled ‘Made in Israel,’ Canadian court rules,' The Times of Israel 29 July 2019

(4) 'EU to use legal loophole to ban settlement goods,' Ynet  12 February 2013

(5) Noa Landau, 'France Should Label Israeli Wine From Settlements, EU Advocate General Says,' Haaretz  13 June 2019

(6) Raphael Ahren, 'Israel frets as imminent EU ruling expected to force settlement labeling,' The Times of Israel 30 October 2019

(6) 'Israeli settlement products must be labeled as such, EU's top court rules,' Deutsche Welle 12 November 2019

(7) Jon Stone, Bel Trew, 'Products from illegal Israeli settlements must be labelled, EU’s highest court rules,' The Independent 12 November 2019

(8) Associated Press, 'Products from Israeli settlements must be labelled, EU court rules,' The Guardian12 November 2019

(10) Noa Landau, 'EU States Must Label Products From Israeli Settlements, Top Court Says,' Haaretz 12 November 2019

(11) Kamervragen over dreigende NVWA-boete voor Israël Producten Centrum Centrum Informatie en Documentatie Israël  15 July 2020 which, if you can’t read Dutch, is a pro-Israeli organization

There can be no doubt that, if brought to your attention, you would not challenge the quality of those sources as RS. One can therefore assume you simply endorsed the abusive editor's evisceration of the page without examining what he did. Or, is there another explanation? Nishidani (talk) 10:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In what world is that edit not vandalism? You think one source is unreliable so you remove nearly 10k of material and 11 or so other sources?  nableezy  - 16:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I meant to delete just one of the sources, which isn't a RS. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There's the RSN board, if you have doubts. I think, having read the whole document, that it is an excellent, well-researched piece. The fact that it comes from an NGO is neither here nor there: we cite them all over I/P articles.Nishidani (talk) 08:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We usually attribute them, not use it in Wiki's voice. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Fine. So we'll add, 'according to a study by the NGO Who Profits' when the page is unblocked.Nishidani (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's also not an "NGO" in the traditional sense. It's an advocacy group that has no reason to be in the encyclopedia. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, as I mentioned below, Shimshon should be removed since that is not in the West Bank. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you actually take the trouble to read the research paper you dislike? On page 24 you would have, had you taken the trouble, noted the following:
 * "A new region called ‘Shimshon’ (Samson) is located between the foothills of the Jerusalem Mountains and the Mediterranean coast, stretching into parts of the occupied West Bank. Nowhere other than in this wine-region map do we come across this name indicating a region in Israel. East of ‘Shimshon’ is the area now called ‘Judean Hills’, encompassing the central and southern areas of the West Bank, the Jerusalem area and what used to be called the Judean Plain. It is also where an increasing number of wineries founded by settlers and in settlements can be found."
 * A note clarifying the possible misleading implications here is all that is necessary.Nishidani (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The hyper-pro-Israeli NGO Monitor defines it as an NGO. Most if not all NGOs in this area of course 'advocate' for things like the right of children not to be 'kidnapped' at night and held without lawyer or parental assistance, for the rights of prisoners, the rights of people not to be regularly shot at demonstrations, etc.etc.etc. This is what NGOs the world over do, they devote their resources to documenting problems, providing detailed information not available to NYTimes readers, but readily available in the Israeli press, with an end to ending an abuse. B'tselem like Addameer and so many others earn their reputations, and are, like Who profits, beneficiaries of foreign governmental funding, by the quality of their research, and Who Profits?' research base on the economic exploitation of occupied territory is widely accessed, even by UN bodies, as a reliable source. Note that, the NGO monitor itself protests the principles on which their research conclusions are based (the role of international law), not the facts they adduce. The only 'fact' you can adduce so far as incorrect, is the word 'Shimshon' area, which, as their report shows, is a borderline case, because some part of that new designation refers to West Bank areas where Israelis produce wine.Nishidani (talk) 09:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 March 2021
Change the reference from WHOPROFITS.org to include it inline and attribute it to WHOPROFITS.org.

(Ultimately it shouldn't even be in this article, but at the very least, it needs to be attributed.) Sir Joseph (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ I can't tell what you want changed by your description above.  Please place the exact line(s) you want changed, with what you want them changed from and changed to.  Assuming this is a minor type of change unrelated to the protection, then reactivate the edit request above.  If this is related to the protection, please discuss and establish a consensus first before reactivation.  Best regards, —  xaosflux  Talk 00:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, this is in regards to the following sentence, " Several of these terms for Israeli wine-growing regions, such as the Judean Hills, the Golan Heights and the Shimshon, actually refer to areas that are largely Israeli-occupied territories." The reference is to whoprofits.org, as discussed above, at the very least, it should be attributed. I would also remove "Shimshon" since that is in Israel proper. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no problem with attribution. As above, the apparent neologism Shimshon refers to a broad area part of which falls into the occupied territories. That is a somewhat tricky issue, requiring at least a note to clarify the ambiguity, but best left to talk page consensus.Nishidani (talk) 09:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is source only reliable for it own claims here its WP:UNDUE --Shrike (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The statement that the grapes used for these wines are grown in the Occupied Territories is entirely uncontroversial. Does anybody actually have a source which disagrees with this? Boynamedsue (talk) 13:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's UNDUE and the source isn't a RS. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say it is either of those things tbh. Sources from advocacy groups can be RS, especially when they are uncontradicted and pretty evidently true. There are articles in Reuters and the Independent relating to "Israeli" wine actually grown on the Palestinian territories, so I'd say it's fine.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If there are articles in mainstream news sources like Reuters that say the same things, we should use them as sources. There's no need to introduce non-reliable advocacy sources in that case. Kenosha Forever (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That is just an assertion.  nableezy  - 13:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Even better, here's an academic source which supports the statement, it details clearly that the various wine areas are split between areas of Israel and the occupied territories, as stated in the lede.Boynamedsue (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This get-rid-of-it argumentation doesn't work. 'Mainstream' sources means basically mainstream newspapers that patchily cover bits and pieces of a reality, and why they should swamp out any documentation that is researched, from an NG0 in this case that writes up detailed analyses of an economic reality no one seriously doubts, is not explicable except if one aims to restrict coverage to fragments in newspaper reportage while sinking links to orderly systematic informational data bases such as that by Who Profits? Just throwing out slogans like WP:RS, WP:Undue without a cogent case is typical o distaste, dislike. Nothing more.Nishidani (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also note that this academic source cites Who Profits several times, bolstering the case for its reliability, as opposed to the assertions offered above that it is just a "non-reliable advocacy source". Theres a reason why bald assertions arent worth much, and this is it.  nableezy  - 14:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with the argument of Nishidani, but in terms of the lede, the new source I added can be used alongside Who Profits?, that should satisfy everybody. A pro-Palestinian advocacy group reporting on wine is clearly relevant for the section on controversy, it is already attributed ao there is no problem there. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

BTW, just to further clarify the evident merit of "Forbidden fruit? The Israeli Wine Industry and the Occupation", it gets 8 citations from academic sources on google scholar. Given this is a fairly niche topic, and this is the work of an advocacy group, I think that's enough to establish notability and RS. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Being mentioned eight times maybe makes it notable, but not reliable by any stretch.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Being cited eight times by peer-reviewed journal articles actually does make it reliable.  nableezy  - 14:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You need to offer argument as to why, I think. The statement its being used for is that various varieties of wine are grown partially in the occupied territories, which I don't think anybody actually disagrees with. Being cited by peer-reviewed publications is one of the things that gives something reliability, it's not something inherent in a person or organisation. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)