Talk:Palestinian wine
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 2 February 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
German colonies
editOne thing missing is the wine making of the German colonies, which was quite famous in the late Ottoman and British periods. Zerotalk 02:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Wine from here and related information may merit more inclusion than currently in the article and especially at the modern section.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Renaming article
editIndependent of the merger proposal, I think this article should be renamed. Considering that we use Palestinian Region to discuss the historical aspect, I think we should use something along this line. When people use Palestine, they use modern day Palestine. When we link on Wikipedia to Palestinian area, we link to Palestine (region) so this is what the article name should be, otherwise it is in my opinion a POV article name, which should be fairly obvious since it was written by Chesdovi who readily admits to it. Sir Joseph (talk) 06:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Absolutely a good idea. Wine from Palestine (region)? Debresser (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Silly proposal. Which other wine article has such a title? SJ's concern about the word Palestine is simply not justified. The usage here matches the most common usage of reliable sources. Zerotalk 10:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- We have lots of titles that sound a little detailed. Nothing silly about a bit of much needed disambiguation/clarification. Debresser (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm looking at Palestine (region) and thinking that name may be a bad idea.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Serialjoepsycho Why? Debresser (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- It's a historic region. The 1948 separation of Palestine and Israel did happen. I'm not sure it would be best to label Taybeh wine as wine of the Palestine (region). Perhaps we should look into renaming the subsections instead.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Serialjoepsycho Why? Debresser (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm looking at Palestine (region) and thinking that name may be a bad idea.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- We have lots of titles that sound a little detailed. Nothing silly about a bit of much needed disambiguation/clarification. Debresser (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Silly proposal. Which other wine article has such a title? SJ's concern about the word Palestine is simply not justified. The usage here matches the most common usage of reliable sources. Zerotalk 10:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Merger proposal
editThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose that Palestinian wine be merged with Israeli wine, as the vast majority of historic breweries mentioned in this article are located in Israel. The reasons are: 1) Duplicate 2) Overlap.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Which is one of the reasons this artificial article should have been deleted. But yes, it could be a section there. Debresser (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Nothing artificial about it. Israeli wine could be a section here, but it is better as a separate article. The possibility of merging was discussed at length in the delete discussion and not accepted. There is no case for having the same argument all over again so soon. Zerotalk 06:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- As you see, that discussion did not put to rest the concerns of some editors. It took place at Afd, so was mainly about deletion, not so much about merging. There is therefore ample reason to consider merging now. Debresser (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Merging would be tantamount to deletion, given the other article's unjustified classification of all periods as "Israeli". Zerotalk 10:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Zero, if that is the problem, then I will be happy to work with you on improving that article in that it should reflect the various names of the area over history. Debresser (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- How about instead we split off all the Historic information in both articles off in to a separate article Wine of historic Palestine. Limiting all mention in the Israeli wine and Palestinian wine to necessary inclusion where a winery exists in modern day?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- I fail to see why there is even a hassle on this. Two articles exist, deal with it. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- There's hassle because there's partisanship. Actually ignoring the partisanship there's a reason to discuss this.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- I like the proposal, but I doubt the term "historic Palestine" is workable, in view of the fact that there have been many names for this region. Which is why I proposed "Palestine (region)". Debresser (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- I forgot what you named it above, I was actually shooting for that. Basically instead of fighting to give to give this precedence to either Modern Israel or Palestine, give it to neither. It's history that correlates to but exists before both modern entities.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Nobody is fighting to give precedence to the modern state of Palestine. That is a strawman. Zerotalk 02:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- I believe the argument was that this somehow delegitimizes Israel. Never the less, forget about precedence. The meat of the actual argument is that modern Palestine and Israel (post-1948) are separate and uniquely different from the (pre-1948) Palestine (region). And yet still there is a shared history.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Nobody is fighting to give precedence to the modern state of Palestine. That is a strawman. Zerotalk 02:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- I forgot what you named it above, I was actually shooting for that. Basically instead of fighting to give to give this precedence to either Modern Israel or Palestine, give it to neither. It's history that correlates to but exists before both modern entities.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- I like the proposal, but I doubt the term "historic Palestine" is workable, in view of the fact that there have been many names for this region. Which is why I proposed "Palestine (region)". Debresser (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- There's hassle because there's partisanship. Actually ignoring the partisanship there's a reason to discuss this.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- I fail to see why there is even a hassle on this. Two articles exist, deal with it. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- How about instead we split off all the Historic information in both articles off in to a separate article Wine of historic Palestine. Limiting all mention in the Israeli wine and Palestinian wine to necessary inclusion where a winery exists in modern day?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Zero, if that is the problem, then I will be happy to work with you on improving that article in that it should reflect the various names of the area over history. Debresser (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Merging would be tantamount to deletion, given the other article's unjustified classification of all periods as "Israeli". Zerotalk 10:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- As you see, that discussion did not put to rest the concerns of some editors. It took place at Afd, so was mainly about deletion, not so much about merging. There is therefore ample reason to consider merging now. Debresser (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Nothing artificial about it. Israeli wine could be a section here, but it is better as a separate article. The possibility of merging was discussed at length in the delete discussion and not accepted. There is no case for having the same argument all over again so soon. Zerotalk 06:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per arguments on previous AFD Makeandtoss (talk) 11:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per overall consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian wine. North America1000 09:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Rating for project palestine
editWhy is my edit for Project Palestine being repeatedly reverted? As per the discussion on the Project Palestine talk page at WT:PALESTINE#Palestinian wine, this article falls within the scope of the project, and its importance rating is purely a technical matter for the editors contributing to that project. It really means nothing to editors interested in this page alone, all it meaningfully changes is our table of article quality. TrickyH (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- The rating is being reverted for the reasons that are being discussed in the discussion you linked to, so please refrain from forumshopping here. Debresser (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete out of shame, please
editOr change either the name, or the content.
"Palestine region" is the Wiki convention for historical purposes. Fought over a million times.
"Palestine", "Palestinians" is the Wiki convention for modern issues re. Arabs in this region, timewise: as soon as something like national identity emerges.
So the topic is either "Winemaking in the Palestine region" and goes back millennia, or "Palestinian wine" and should cover winemaking in the West Bank (or does Gaza deserve a mention?) since 1948 or 67, and certainly not beyond the 19th century.
For the latter, Hebron and Cremisan would come to mind etc. But it would be just a side page (what's the term?) for the former. Israel wine would also be a side page to "Winemaking in the Palestine region", of course. Yesterday I've started Gaza wine (Byzantine period), also a side page.
An encyclopedia is not like planting your flag on the moon, that was the ways of the empires ("I came first and took possession in the name of His Majesty, King Mineisthebest"), not of knowledge and encyclopedias. Activists of all nations, go home! Take a nap. A long one. Arminden (talk) 12:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)