Talk:Champagne/Archive 1

Plagiarism

The user Pith Helmet plagiarized an article from http://www.champagneclub.org/ using many word for word quotations without using quote marks, so I reverted that user's two edits to this page. 70.92.146.111 22:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

American usage of the word "Champagne"

While the Treaty of Versaille is one of the many reasons that the US does not provide adequate protection for the Champagne name, the connection to the Prohibition era is not relevant. The Champagne protection was part of the larger treaty, which the US Senate never ratified (certainly for reasons not focused on the Champagne name). I believe I have made appropriate changes to the entry to reflect this, yet (as always) I am sure others can do better. -- DeepSouth

The alternate explanation to the American use of champagne is that the year the treaty was ratified prohibition in the USA was enforced. The section on alcohol was not ratified by the USA as there was no need as no alcohol was in the USA. This was never corrected after the repeal of prohibition. (Explanation given by some champagne producers in France)

This article seems to blame the US's refusal to ratify the treaty of Versailles on the introduction of prohibition. As a political science geek, I find this to be a somewhat interesting interpretation. Perhaps this reference could be supported or deleted, and a link inserted to the "protected designation of origin" article?

Champagne is a sparkling wine, but not all sparkling wines are champagne; only those produced in an specific french region. Some of them are also produced from different varieties of grapes, like 'Cremant D'Alsace'. I propose the un-redirection of "sparkling wines" to champagne. --Jjmerelo 16:55, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Was about to do page for Sekt which is German sparkling wine, made by a variety of methods and discovered the redirect. Only in america is all sparkling wine called champagne. Justinc 17:44, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC) Have made a stub article for sparkling wine. Some detail on non-champagne methods of production would be useful there. Justinc 18:17, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not all sparklers are called champagne. We drink plenty of Asti. And champagne is still a semi-generic in Canada also (at least last year it was.) Rmhermen 15:45, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Not all American's refer to Sparkling Wines as Champagne, either. In California, wine is big business. Several sparkling wines are made, but they cannot/are not called Champagne. The vintners that I heard in various television news interviews a few years ago (when this was a big state-wide topic for a time), had mixed feelings. Some wanted to piggyback on the French reputation, while others wanted to be uniquely non-French. After the U.S.-French relations became strained due to UN actions, the desire to name anything after the French dwindled, and it does not seem to be a big issue any longer. The bigger issue now is just how many Napa-county grapes (by volume) must be included to refer to a California (or even out of state) wine as a Napa wine. It is a very similar situation with the Champagne term before. --Willscrlt 10:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

bottle

bottle size are not the same betwen the french market and international market look fr:Vin de Champagne

Removed line: Some people add sugar to their wine: the excess sugar produces further fermentation and reinvigorates its bubbles. This is clearly bogus as adding sugar wont cause refermentation (unless you leave it for some weeks/months in the right conditions). It will add sparkle by causing nucleation but its not exactly relevant.

Factual dispute over type of nucleation source for the bubbles

This regards the formation of bubbles; the article avers it has to do with air pockets in the glass, but I remember seeing something in Popular Science about this being disproven with slow-motion video or photography (and that the bubbles actually come from impurities such as dust or fibers of cloth from a dishtowel). I can't seem to find the article, though, and I've checked their website. Help! Deltabeignet 04:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think you are right. Might have been a real science magazine, but I remember that article. Wnissen 06:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Answer

The bubbles form on cellulose fibres, either from dust in the air, or left over from the wiping/drying process.
References are:
Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 53(2):151-153 (2002) abstract. here:
- http://www.asev.org/Journal/Volumes/53_2/Pgs151-153%20Abstract.pdf
Copy of paper in Europhysics News (2002) Vol. 33 No. 1here:
- http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/13/article3/article3.html
Another paper ( Ann. Phys. Fr., Vol. 27, N°4 July/August 2002, pp. 1-106) here:
- http://www.edpsciences.org/articles/anphys/abs/2002/04/ann042002/ann042002.html
They make interesting reading.
...WLD 12:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Clarification

A Champagne flute should be etched (by a drop of acid or with an etching tool or laser) at the bottom of the glass to provide nucleation sites for consistent bubble formation. Comparing an unetched glass to one properly etched will clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of this technique since one can easily see the bubbles forming on the etch.

Addition, destroying bubbles

Washing products, women lip stick, broke the formation of bubbles. Washing products remove impurity (dust, impurity of the glass) by removing them or covering them. So, it's advised to taste champagne without lip stick (for men, it's not a problem, don't you ?), and wash glasses with water only.

List of producers

Do we have a List of chamgagne producers or something similar? Pcb21| Pete 23:40, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

in fr:Vin de Champagne --Ste281 16:16, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

or List of champagne producers Rescendent 14:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

External Link Issues

Grapester links

anon IP address has been going around adding links to Grapester. Basically seems to be commercial, and the information on that site is no better than what we already have.

No, there is enough advertising about that. See links for that.

Uncorked: The Science of Champagne

Is the link "Uncorked: The Science of Champagne" a book by... just a link to buy a book? Rescendent 14:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Added a Bibliography section and moved the book into there, changed link to be via ISBN as per wiki guidelines. Is Bibliography the right name/section, as the book I do not believe is referenced or used in the article. Suggestions please. Rescendent 17:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Changed Bibliography to Further reading sits better. Any thoughts? Rescendent 18:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

INAO vs. Community coming together

I've been involved in a minor edit war with an anon IP who keeps adding that the community came together to determine the rules, then the INAO codified them. I believe that the rulemaking process is intensely political, involving lobbying of government officials, infighting between various Champagne factions, etc., and has very little to do with any kind of community other than the big Champagne houses. "Coming together" is clearly untrue, "community" perhaps merely misleading. If anyone has any information that Champagne rulemaking is done on a friendly communitarian basis, please post it here or I will continue to remove it. Wnissen 6 July 2005 14:17 (UTC)

While I think politics is probably involved in every facet of rulemaking, Champagne is actually a good example of community consensus rulemaking. The CIVC (link on the page we are talking about) is made up of all 15,000 growers, all the cooperatives and 300+ houses of Champagne. They came together years ago to avoid riots and infighting between growers and houses about the name Champagne. They are so even handed that the organization has 2 co-presidents -- one from the growers, the other from the houses. They protect and promote the appellation, test new farming methods, etc. and decide on all rules and regulations that govern wines that can carry the name Champagne (at least those from France). While the INAO does approve the rules of all appellations, Champagne is the one who first agrees on their own rules and then asks the INAO to codify them. Does this help? Maybe there is language that can talk about the community level involvement in the rules and regulations of the region as suggested by others as well as the continued mention of the INAO as you have suggested as they clearly need to be included in the description of the situation. What do you think? Deep South

Fascinating. I knew that Champagne was somewhat more consensus-driven than other regions, but had no idea that the CIVC was so all-encompassing. In light of what you've said, I don't have a problem with discussing the "community." Please, write about the the CIVC and reference the community. Wnissen 02:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I made some edits to the first graph but also added a section on the CIVC based on the enthusiasm for this perspective. See if it is appropriate as I had to do some rough translating from French to try and capture the structure. Deep South

In its use of "the community", the first paragraph could be clearer. Which community? The European Community (EC)? I do see from the above that you refer to the community of growers and houses but that is not clear in the first paragraph.

Cork not Champagne?

This is probably being very picky...but the cork pictured in the article doesn't appear to actually be from a bottle of Champagne. I think it's something from the Mumm Cuvée Napa line—made in the Champagne style by a winery owned by one of the genuine Champagne houses, but located in California.

Then again, it's a great picture of a cork, and even if it isn't a real Champagne cork, it's certainly a cork in the Champagne style. :-) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:35, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

No, you're absolutely right, that's a Napa-branded cork. But gawd its a pretty picture, isn't it? Maybe I will take a shot of a Champagne cork so that we can be correct in our presentation. Good eye! Wnissen 21:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe if we just change the caption.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Changed the image to one of actual champagne corks.... Rescendent(talk) 22:12, 03 January 2006 (UTC)

And moved the previous one to Sparkling Wine Rescendent

Ironage

Somebody added a bit about using a golf club to open a bottle of champagne, and called it "ironage". Now, I've never heard of this, and neither has google, so I removed it and put it here:

If you happen to be on the golf course this can be done with a seven-iron in which case its called "ironage". Set the bottle against a tee marker or other suitable object and hold it in place with your left foot (right-handed golfer). As with all golf shots, this should be practiced on the range before trying it on the course.

If it's real, put it back and cite a source. Lostchicken 04:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

To the person editing from 4.243.x.x (Level 3)

Please do not edit other people's comments on the talk page - the convention is to add your own edits, not change other people's, and also, please sign your contribution with four tildes like this ~~~~. Please note that contentious topics should be discussed openly, and it is advisable to be able to cire sources and references for any facts you may wish to assert. Editing the sense of other people's contributions is not the convention on Wikipedia talk pages. You are encouraged to register a username (it's free) to facilitate discussions. WLD 23:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

Should this article use American English or British/Commonwealth English spellings? The official English variant in use in the European Union (where Champagne comes from) is British English, so should the spellings therefore be British English? I know normally the rule is to use the spelling rules for whichever variant was used for the original article. Thoughts anyone? WLD 20:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Bubbles

Anyone who has ever contemplated a "strand of beads" (a string of bubbles rising from the bottom of a champagne flute) knows of their hypnotizing capability. To insist that these strands are primarily caused by dust and/or lint is to exhibit a fundamental lack of understanding as to their creation. After reading all of the references cited regarding the "lint" research which, although it may explain a small percentage of the mousse (French for foam) seen in a glass of sparkling wine, cannot explain why a glass of "champagne " continues to produce bubbles once the initial rush has settled down. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that as bubbles form on any lint/dust they will quickly pull those particles to the surface of the liquid, removing them from the equation. When a sparkling wine is poured into an unetched glass it will very quickly look "flat" after the initial burst of efferesence, unless the glass has been roughened by etching to provide nucleation sites. To insist that this statement requires a scientific reference is like saying I need proof before I say that "rain requires the presence of water." Although the British drink more Champagne per capita than any other country, that doesn't make "Mr. West End Dweller" the world's penultimate expert on bubbles. All anyone needs is a couple of flutes (one etched and one unetched) and a bottle of sparkling wine, to clearly demonstrate that an etch causes the formation of bubbles. Cheers!

PS. Have you ever seen someone put a shake of salt in their beer? What happens? The beer foams up; because the salt crystals are providing nucleation sites. The same as if that glass was etched. QED

(The above unsigned comments written by User:Domainiac1743)

Hello Domainiac1743. Thank-you for creating an account, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia. As a new user, you may not realise that it is usual to 'sign' your comments by typing four tildes in a row like this '~~~~'

I'm afraid your comments do not stand scrutiny. To quote from the Europhysics News paper "Most of nucleation sites are located on hollow and roughly cylindrical exogenous cellulose fibres" - that is to say, not 'a small percentage' to use your phrase.

Furthermore, the fibres will not be quickly pulled to the surface. If you look carefully at at a glass of champagne, you'll notice that nucleation sites in the body of the liquid do not rush to the surface with the speed of the bubbles themselves - they in fact drift around quite languidly.

Etching, in and of itself, does not provide nucleation sites. However, the roughened surface of the glass acts as an excellent trap for fibres and other ariel borne detritus, and it is this that provides the majority of the nucleation sites. As the Europhysics News paper points out, "The length-scale of glass and crystal irregularities is far below the critical radius of curvature required for the non-classical heterogeneous nucleation." .

I'm afraid you do need scientific back-up for apparently obvious statements - a couple of cases may illustrate this for you: at first sight, it does look as if the sun goes round the earth; and that the earth seems to be flat. Both statements are statements of the 'obvious', and yet we know not to be true. It also seems obvious that a feather and a hammer will fall at different 'speeds' - yet the famous exeriment on the Moon showed that when the astronaut released them, they both hit the moon at the same time - falling in a vacuum meant the feather was no longer slowed down by air-resistance.

An etched glass will produce more bubbles becasue is is 'dirtier'. You might not be able to see the fibres acting as nucleation sites, as they are one-hundredth of a millimetre across, but they are there.

The salt grains in beer example demonstrates nothing - I have no idea how the length scale of irregularities on salt crystals compares to the radius of curvature required to support bubble formation and growth in beer. If you are trying to say that foreign bodies in the liquid promote bubble formation, then you are supporting the case that nucleation occurs on such bodies, and the same is presumably true of fibres in champagne.

Please back up your claim with references that etching alone provides nucleation sites - simply stating it to be true doesn't make it true, and I can find no literature supporting that claim. WLD 23:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

More about bubbles

It's interesting that when new research surfaces that expands the understanding of a phenomenon, some people embrace this new information as being the ONLY explanation of said phenomenon. Why are you so obsessed with dirt and dust? I never said lint didn't cause bubbles, and Monsieur, et al, never said etching didn't provide nucleation sites. Thats your misconception. If you take a newly etched flute directly out of a dishwasher and immediately fill it with sparkling wine, that wine will present a strand of beads, even if the glass hasn't been dried. I have worked for a large American producer of methode champagnoise sparkling wine for 17 years. Excuse me, but with the volume of business in our Visitor Center (over 210,000 visitors in '05), our glasses don't sit around long enough to gather your beloved dust. And when we see a glass of sparkling wine that doesn't seem to be very bubbly, we know it's because that particular glass was overlooked when we were etching our glasses. This is easily proved by pouring that wine into an etched glass. You don't need fancy high speed photographic equipment to actually see bubbles forming on the etch. The reason we etch our glasses is because we know that sparkling wine poured into an unetched glass will not be very active. And naturally, we want our customers to see action! In fact what I'm saying in no way contradicts Monsieur Liget-Belair. We are both saying that an unetched glass will not provide nucleation sites. That's why we etch our glasses!!! Bill 01:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)domainiac1743

Some of the previous edits to this contentious section were attempting to minimize the role of exogenous particles, which is incorrect.

I never said dust/lint/whatever were the only source. If I implied that, I apologize.

Standard air around your average dishwasher (not in a clean room) contains 10s of thousands of particles per cubic metre. It's why clean rooms exist for microchip manufacturing, as the problem of dust contamination of surfaces is very real. To go some way to resolving this, we'd need to sponsor someone with a clean room or 'clean bench' to do some experiments with cleaned (i.e. dust free) etched and unetched glasses and a supply of champagne. Champagne (thankfully) is readily available, but I don't have a ready supply of clean rooms, or etched glasses come to that.

I've re-edited the text to remove the uncited declaration that etching encourages dust entrapment, as I can find nothing in the literature I've researched on clean-room contamination or acid-etched glass conservation and cleaning, so it's a fair cop. I could put together a plausible handwaving argument, but thinking about the length-scale and population distribution of surface irregularities in etched glass compared to the size distribution of dust particles, friction at the length scale we are talking about, and methods of adsorption I decided hand-waving is too open to dispute. I think the text, as it stands now is a good-enough synthesis of our respective positions. I hope you agree. WLD 11:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I most certainly do not agree. For one thing you are assuming that all glasses are dried, a ridiculous assumption. And I would contend that, as shown in research done by Gérard Liger-Belair (2004) Uncorked: The Science of Champagne, the average length-scale of the dust particles in ambient air is too small to provide reliable nucleation sites for bubble formation. So, although lint left behind during the drying of champagne flutes may provide some weak, unreliable nucleation sites, only etched glasses will provide nucleation sites of sufficient length to insure the kind of reliable, consistant, dependable bubble formation consumers desire. That's why we etch the glasses!!! Bill 18:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)domainiac1743

That's fine. We obviously do not have sufficient common ground to reach agreement. I suggest we solicit third party opinions via a poll. Could I also recommend to whoever is making anonymous edits to this contentious part of the article to instead edit via an account. I will revert to the non-anonymously edited text and request that we await the results of the poll. WLD 07:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Third party, fourth party, fifth party... it's all irrelevant since your dusty assertions are easily dispelled by simple observation. Bill 09:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)domainiac1743

To throw in the mix, as I assume it should be a pretty good source under the terms of Wikipedia:Verifiability "The importance of the nature of the glasses and their maintenance" from Union of Champagne Houses. This suggests that wiping and lint do cause the bubbles in the first place, however depending on exactly how the glass is cleaned and dried is very important in determining the exact outcome. Therefore glasses can be etched to provide more relable consistency to the bubbles - this would suggest you ar both right? Rescendent 20:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you for joining the debate (or maybe popping your head above the parapet!) - and thank-you especially for finding another source. I don't think I am capable of writing a neutral point of view article that would meet with Bill's approval, and the converse is possibly also true, so I welcome third party input. Welcome to the party. WLD 08:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed: Evaluation of Champagne

Section removed as below:

- Because Champagne is a branded product of relatively few producers and is of rather consistent quality, wine critics such as Robert M. Parker serve little function for Champagne consumers.

Reason for removal:

There are more than 15,000 growers; more than 400 houses, each producing upwards of 4 different bottles each year, each which is very different. With 1,600+ different types of champagne each year; it is helpful for guidence to be provided. Also not sure why the reference to Robert M. Parker in particular. This seems an unverifiable section.

Consistent quality? I think not. Justinc 11:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Champagne vs champagne

The word "champagne", when referring to the beverage or to the color, is not a proper name in English, and should not be capitalized. This is true even if one believes that champagne can only come from Champagne (the region in France, which is a proper name and should be capitalized). To make it short: When I was in Champagne, I had a glass of champagne. Of course, the urge to capitalize is understandable. I'm from the largest city in Oregon, and I always cringe when I see the term portland cement, in all it's uncapitalized glory.  :) --EngineerScotty 18:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Except that Champagne is a beverage, and not just a region. It's very common to use the place name as the name of the beverage when dealing with French wines. The beverage Champagne comes from Champagne. Similarly, one might enjoy a glass of Beaujolais, Chablis, Burgundy, or Bordeaux.

The generic term is 'sparkling wine', though some producers of cheap swill also call their product 'champagne' in an attempt to capitalize on the strength of the name. (You can also find knockoff 'bordeaux' and 'chablis', especially in the United States.) Reputable winemakers who have taken the effort to make a wine in the Champagne style with Champagne methods (but outside of the Champagne region) will never appropriate the name 'Champagne'—they instead will refer to the 'Champagne method' or méthode champenoise. (In Europe, to avoid any possible confusion with the 'real' Champagne, they use the phrase méthode traditionelle.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Depends on the audience, I suppose. The term Bordeaux has never been genericized; the general public doesn't use the term Bordeaux to refer to wines that may have been made in California. However, "champagne", like it or not, has been genericized. Many, especially casual wine drinkers, do use it to refer to "sparkling white wine", irrespective of from where it comes. And this use isn't capitalized. The wiktionary entries indicate that champagne is capitalized only if referring to the region itself (as opposed to the drink), though I'm certain authorities exist for the other position. And while many fine winemakers outside of Champagne don't refer to their sparkling whites as "champagne"; many less-than-fine winemakers (Korbel, Cooks) do refer to their swill as champagne.

Unfortunately, the article isn't always clear when the word "champagne" (with either capitalization) is referring to the region; sparkling white wines from the region, or sparkling white wines in general. And, there is some duplication with the article sparkling wine. Maybe a merger/refactoring of the two is in order; and/or standardization of the following terminology:

• Champagne, when referring to the region
• champagne, when referring to sparking wines produced in Champagne
• sparkling wine, when referring to the beverage in general (including any beverage produced outside of Champagne), regardless of process.

Thoughts? --EngineerScotty 21:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I've rolled back your change to the capitalization for the moment; it really ought to be discussed here first.

I'd recommend not relying on Wiktionary as your sole guide to make a decision on the issue of capitalization of 'champagne'. Whie it is a fine project with many dedicated contributors, the reliability of its entries varies, and the c/Champagne entries have received little apparent discussion or review.

I would suggest that the capital C is more correct in discussion sparkling wines from the Champagne region of France. Other sparklers are discussed in our sparkling wine article; the use and abuse of the 'C/champagne' appellation should be mentioned both here and in that article. This article is about the sparkling wine from Champagne, France, and appropriately should use the capital 'C'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I did a bit of quick online checking, including the English-language links mentioned in the article (and several other online dictionaries). Most of the sites referenced used the lowercase form when referring to champagne as a noun (though several did use the form "Champagne wine", with Champagne being an adjective--this usage I agree should be capitalized). The two sites that consistently referred to the beverage as Champagne were two growers' trade associations, FWIW. Agree that Wiktionary shouldn't be a sole source.

One online reference my browser had issues with; and I don't have immediate access to any of the printed works mention. The work in French I ignored, as French grammar differs from English on this point (proper nouns are never capitalized in French, IIRC).

Proper nouns certainly are capitalised in French!

I'll leave things alone for now, to let others chime in (and provide more references). It's entirely possible that use of C vs c is one of those things that differs by social strata and/or other societal/class distinction, with those more heavily involved in the champagne industry (including as conniseurs or other consumers of the stuff) preferring the capitalized form. --EngineerScotty 00:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Without going into extensive linking, I'll say that it appears that in dealing with c/Champagne – the wine, not the place – the convention among growers, winemakers, the wine press, and wine experts is to use the capital C. Usage in the lay press seems to be much more mixed, though some of that may be due to use of the word 'champagne' as a generic term for sparkling wines rather than for Champagne wines.

I would tend to prefer that we err on the side of the experts and treat Champagne as a technical term with specific meaning, while still providing adequate explanation about other usage (e.g. 'champagne'). I'll list the issue on RfC, though; that might bring in some third opinions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Another issue on a related topic: The article mentions that champagne is always a sparking wine produced in Champagne. I wonder: what about other, non-sparkling or otherwise non-brut wines, from the Champagne region? Can they be called champagne? (Of course not brut) Or is there a specific name/phrase for non-sparkling wines from this region? (Thanks in advance.) — Adhemar 20:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

They can't.

From the RfC; As a comparison, the Stilton (cheese) article uses a big S; Edam (cheese) is 'E'; Bordeaux wine uses 'B' throughout; etc. I think the difference with Champagne is that it is used - inaccurately but regularly enough - to describe sparkiling wine in general and not just that from the Champagne region. As this article deals with this (mis)use and refers almost entirely to big C Champagne, then I think its fine as it is; so yeah, follow the technical terminology I think. --Robdurbar 14:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

(Saw the RfC) The on-line definitions do not capitalize champagne even when talking about the "real stuff" from the Champagne area [1]. Sophia 15:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Could someone who has access to a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary look "champagne" up in that tome? I, unfortunately, do not. (Maybe I'll put it on the wishlist. :) --EngineerScotty 16:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't have that one but my Collins English Dictionary gives it a small c. --Robdurbar 16:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't have the Oxford one either but my dictionary also gives it a small c. Sophia 21:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a great discussion. While certainly not a game changer, noticed that the New York Times uses Champagne for both the region and the sparkling wine produced under the regins AOC rules. I believe that this is because they do not allow the term to be used for the more general sparkling wine category. --DeepSouth 22:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC) FWIW, I've added a sentence to the opening paragraph addressing the capitalization issue; per the above discussion, I've stated that it can go either way when referring specifically to Champagne wines. I haven't changed the caps anywhere else. --EngineerScotty 05:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a reply to the RfC. I agree with EngineerScotty comment about drinking champagne from Champagne and sparkling wine from elsewhere. :) youngamerican (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The copy of Webster's on my desk has entries for both Champagne and champagne. The former deals with the region, while the latter deals with the beverage. This corresponds with my belief that the term has been genericized, and as such, I think the small "c" should be used in this article. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Champagne, when capitalized (and not the first word in the sentence), should ONLY refer to the specific brand of wine made in the eponymous region. Champagne, uncapitalized, COULD refer to the wine from Champagne, but in most cases, should only be used for wine made anywhere else. Or maybe the generic term champagne should be avoided completely, for the sake of disambiguity. It ultimately should depend on context. Xaxafrad 04:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The OED, also, has lower-case "champagne", with several quotations using the lower-case form back through to 1795 (perhaps earlier to 1678). This is a generic noun and the lower-case is appropriate. —Centrx→talk • 04:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with above suggestion of: Champagne (region of France); champagne (beverage produced in the Champagne region); sparkling wine (beverage produced outside of the Champagne region) --Jon Cates 00:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Since this issue is over 3 months old and it looks like most everyone agrees, I think the matter is closed. Any remaining errant words need to be changed in the article. —Centrx→talk • 21:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I think almost everyone in this discussion agrees that we should use 'Champagne' for the region, and 'champagne' for the wine. However it's been more than 2 months since the last comment, but the article still uses the capitalized 'Champagne' to refer to the wine. Anyone care to do the hard lifting and go through the article changing the capitalization? --lk 15:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Done -- Etimbo ( Talk) 18:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"Loophole" = POV

I reverted a change wherein US trademark law (which treats "champagne" as a semi-generic term) is referred to as a "loophole"; on the grounds that this comment is POV. Simply noting the state of US law, without the editorial disapproval generated by the negative term "loophole", will suffice. US trademark law has a longstanding practice and tradition of restricting the ability of manufacturers and merchants to "own" common words and place names. Sometimes this can lead to slightly misleading trade names. The treatment of "champagne" is not at all unusual under the US system. Many, including myself, tend to view trademarking of place names as anti-consumer and protectionist; more for the benefit of the merchant than of the consumer. (Note that US law does not permit misleading indications of origin; a bottle may not proclaim "Made in France" unless the wine is indeed of French origin).

I'm not sure how US law treats other terms of origin in the wine trade, such as Bordeaux or Burgundy. As these terms have not been genericized; it wouldn't surprise me if they receive greater protection.Actually, Burgundy and Bordeaux receive even less protection.

The term "loophole" implies that the right and proper state of affairs is for "C/champagne" to receive the legal protection indicated, and any other course of action is somehow deviant or wrong-headed.

--EngineerScotty 05:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• A better argument: The term "loophole" usually refers to an unintended consequence of the law; which allows the intended target(s) of the law to legally escape its effects. That doesn't apply to the relevant US law, which is quite explicit and intentional in declaring that sparkling wine may be marketed as "champagne", regardless of origin. --EngineerScotty 06:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

---ELABORATION: US law permits use of term champagne so long as the actual geographic origin of the beverage is prominently displayed in connection with the name champagne. This, of course, eliminates the possibility of consumer confusion. See semi-generic.Paula Willard 18:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Loophole is exactly the right term. Loophole does not refer to an unintended consequence of the law. It refers to a law that (intended or not) enables one to get around the primary focus of the majority of the law. The Tax Relief Act of 1997 includes special language that requires that 17 names be treated in a distinct manner from all other words on a wine label. These 17 all are European protected appellations. As the law identifies only 17 names and does not set policy for a wide range of places (e.g. all wine related geographic indications in Europe or all US AVAs) it is a classic loophole. In fact, the 17 names include wine growing places like France's Burgundy and Chablis, yet not Bordeaux due to the perception that Bordeaux's political power would make the loophole politically untenable to (at the time of passage) a major US ally. Finally, this Wikipedia is an english language wiki, not exclusively a US wiki. The US law is "deviant" as it is in complete opposition to laws in the majority of the world including those that govern its neighbors Mexico and (as of 2010) Canada as well as other English language countries such as the UK and Australia. In fact US producers of sparkling wine that label it Champagne must relabel that wine without the word Champagne for sale in the majority of the world. I will wait a few days to let this conversation percolate, but (in my opinion) if this is not a loophole and is not in line with the norms of the most of the worlds wine labeling regulations, I don't know what is. DeepSouth

---

"Loophole" is clearly an opprobrious term that expresses a biased point of view. It's most unacceptable.Bill Albertson 20:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

British invention of

It is my understanding that the British have a valid claim to the invention of Champagne.

Essentially the wine was always a still beverage like any other, until the well-heeled English of the 17th century developed a taste for it in larger quantities than the French were readily able to supply. The French started supplying younger and younger product, which would continue to ferment and carbonate as it was shipped in sealed barrels (especially when stirred by the motion of sea travel). Wine that fermented in transit would produce positive CO2 pressure and was therefore better able to protect itself from the rigours of sea travel (and taste fresher on arrival) than wine that had fermented out which could oxidise and stale in the barrel.

The British, used to drinking cider and ale with a slight fizz anyway, started to enjoy the fizzy wine, and some importers would deliberately charge wine that wasn't considered lively enough with sugar, in order that it would ferment further in the bottle and create a fizz. Bottles so charged would often break so the British made stronger bottles (possible with hotter coal furnaces, not wood as was used by French glass producers). Also the French did not use corks until much later, they used bungs made from hemp and/or wood, which are unlikely to have provided enough of a seal for reliable production of a sparkling wine.

English poets were writing of the joys of the 'sparkling champagne' decades before the earliest French records that mention fizz (1660s vs 1700s).

No doubt the French champagne houses played a large part in refining some of the production process and making the product more 'noble', but to claim 'invention of' the sparkling version is a stretch given the English were effectively drinking it before the French even had the technology to produce it.

Much of this version of events is supported in 'the ultimate encyclopedia of wine beer spirits & liquers' (Stuart Walton & Brian Glover, Anness Publishing 1998) as well as anecdotally among London wine merchants, but I am not aware of any other citable sources at present. If I find any more I will of course add them.

How does this square with the claim in our article that the first known commercially produced sparkling wine comes from Languedoc, and dates to circa 1535? There needs to be somethign to support that claim.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I guess the question is whether the Languedoc wine was deliberately produced with a fizz. Technically any fermented drink will have some fizz (dissolved CO2) if you drink it early enough, or keep it cold enough (or pressurised) during and after fermentation. I am not aware of a commercially-produced deliberately sparkling wine that early, effervescence in wine would generally have been frowned upon as an undesirable result of stuck fermentation (due to sudden cold weather, for example) or impatient bottling. That's not to say the claim isn't true, but I would like to see it supported. I suppose it is possible that some level of carbonation may have been appreciated in regions where wines were predominantly drunk young, cold and fresh, not sure how well that fits the claim, but whether it was (or could have been) deliberately supplied that way is a different matter. Brewabeer 06:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

As to documented evidence:

Sparkling wine was invented by The Italians actually, in the days of Ceasar & Cleopatra. Documented in Virgil's Aenid.

Sparkling wine from the Champagne region of France first documented in 1676 by Sir George Etherege, the English had been making the process for some years. Chin-Chin All.

Doug :-) p.s. It's an English claim by the way it not a British one. Pith Helmet 22:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems highly unlikely that the French would produce a fizzy beverage without noticing it. You need to find citations for your claim that the English invented champagne, otherwise the section has to go.

Bubbles section

The section on bubbles is a tad ...academic. There is a lot of vocabulary that needs some defining, and the entire section needs to be re-written for an audience not composed of physicists. Harley peters 20:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Champagne and the law

Surely the passage below is a joke and should be removed. It is unsubstantiated and I couldn't find a reference to it in any publication in English -- besides which, it's an obvious absurdity:

On the 1st April 2006, the EU passed a law that stipulated Champagne had to be pronounced as Cham-pag-neigh as in the natural French pronunciation. Within the EU is is currently a criminal offence to use a different pronunciation with a mandatory fine and possible withdrawal of a license for off-licenceses, pubs and restaurants. To enforce this the EU is working with the authourities in different countries with spot checks and undercover shoppers.

Aleslinger 23:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Aleslinger

It seems to have gone. Nothing would surprise me about EU regulation, but two things are dead giveaways: the date, and the fact that the French don't say it that way. Notinasnaid 09:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Page move?

This page should be at Champagne, and the current contents of that page should be moved to Champagne (disambiguation). Don't you think so? Coffee 04:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I would support that request. Why don't you list it at WP:RM? Agne 04:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. I think I fixed most of the incoming links that needed fixing. --Dgies 16:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I would think this should be Champagne (wine) because it is named after the province and the province should be just Champagne. The same was done for Cheddar, Bologna and Bordeaux. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.186.127 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 30 November 2006

I'm inclined to agree with Mr. 71.109.186.127. Was this move from Champagne (beverage) to Champagne proper discussed anywhere other than this talk page? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Turkey is another example where a geographic location takes precedence over a consumable. Is there any objection to moving this page back to Champagne (beverage)? If not, I will do so within the week. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

MOVE - I am a big proponent of being as clear as possible on the naming of the articles. Champagne (beverage) makes much more sense, and Champagne (wine) makes the most sense of all to me. Then again, since the List of cocktails links to Champagne (beverage), it would mean less work in editing links to set everything back to Champagne (beverage). --Willscrlt 19:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we just put this through a proper WP:RM? Agne 23:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Move Champagne → Champagne (wine) and Champagne (disambiguation) → Champagne. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Move Request

Since an RM has been open, might as well get a clean break for the discussion. I'm going to put a note on the Wine project page so that we can try and get a larger scope for consensus.

Should Champagne be moved to → Champagne (beverage) and Champagne redirect to Champagne (disambiguation)?

• Strong Oppose For the majority of the world population champagne is a drink with bubbles. A direct link to this page will be appreciated by most users. Among our community is is also a very popular page (see number of edits) a second reason it merrits the direct link. Frank van Mierlo 05:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support the redirect to the disambig but Oppose the move to Champagne (beverage) in favor of the more appropriate Champagne (wine). Agne 23:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support the move, and agree with Agne about the new name. Champagne (wine) is more appropriate. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 02:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support in general, but holding no opinion on the "beverage or wine" issue. - Evv 14:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support in general, but if the beverage is moved to either form, Champagne (disambiguation) should be moved to Champagne--no point in having a redirect in the way to the disamb page. Niteowlneils 00:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support either (beverage) or (wine), whichever gets consensus. I'd almost go so far as to say that the article at Champagne should be Champagne (province) rather than the disambig. FiggyBee 06:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support I'm not sure that this may not be the primary usage. But given the large number of uses and the one vote to redirect to Champagne (province), it may not be the primary use. So move to Champagne (wine) and then move Champagne (disambiguation) to Champagne. Vegaswikian 06:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• I would support the move to Champagne (wine) and then move Champagne (disambiguation) to Champagne like Vegaswikian suggested too --Symposiarch 15:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support in general, moving to either (beverage) or (wine), with the disambiguation page holding the primary Champagne title. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose The beverage is the most common use. People looking for the region can easily find it, and there is a link within the article at the top and within. Tfine80 16:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the wine is the most well known usage of the phrase but there is enough ambiguity and awareness of the region to merit a disambig page. It is not going to hamper users ability to find the article and it follows the established precedent of Cork. Agne 21:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

To a large extent, I do agree with Tfine80's sentiments. I had suggested moving a number of location-named wines to be the primary article, primarily those named after small communes (Sauternes for example - the wine is known all over the world, the commune has under 600 inhabitants). But after some discussion, the precedent is there that items named after a place to get the main article. Consistency and naming conventions help Wikipedia stay accessible, which is why I think the move makes sense. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 23:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Around the world champagne is probably more well known for the wine than the region, which is slighty ironic, afterall its called champagnne because of... Rescendent 16:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support move to Champagne (wine). --Myles Long 23:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. If the region was a contemporary rather than a historical subdivsion and/or the wine was less well-known, the move might be appropriate. Also, Cheddar should be changed too. —  AjaxSmack  06:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Mild support to move to Champagne (wine). Beverage is too American English for many users to understand. I may support Champagne (drink) but wine is more correct. Asterion^talk 13:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support to move to Champagne (beverage). I believe Champagne should be a disambig page. The current disambig page should be moved here.
• Support - the province is quite common, this should be a dab. -Patstuart^talk|edits 17:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sabre section

I appreciate the attempts to improve the article and inclusion of a nice picture, but the section has seemed to dance into original research and become a "How to". I wouldn't want to outright delete the section because it does offer some interesting info but we need to find a way to rewrite it (and find some reliable sources to cite) so we can lessen the OR and "How to"-ish tone. Agne 21:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Improvements are always welcome. Could you try this once? The upcoming New Year is a good occasion. This is certainly not original research as this method is well known around the world and has real historical significance. Frank van Mierlo 05:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well the most troublesome part is the step by step "How to" approach whch is explictedly discouraged in WP:NOT "Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes.". I do see value in this info, we just need to shaved off some of the "How to" approach. My best recommendation is to try to mine down the info to a mini blurb that can go underneath the photo that is describing what is being done in the photo. I moved the "how to" section from the article and transferred it here for the time being. Agne 08:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

To properly execute, one should:

• Chill the Champagne for at least 24 hours, cold liquid holds more gas.
• Select a heavy sabre, with a rather short blade and broad back;
• Hold the sabre in one hand, if you want to preserve the edge of the blade you can use the back of the sabre;
• Hold the Champagne bottle on its lowest part in the other hand , the wire cage loosened or removed;
• Find the seam of the bottle, there is one on each side running from top to bottom;
• With the arm that is holding the bottle fully extended, slide the blade on the seam alongside the bottle until it hits the lip on the bottleneck. The jolt will break the bottle and its tip will fly away in a trajectory;
• Have a little of the spray spill out in order to wash away potential glass splinters, make sure you have a glass ready to catch the champagne;

Using the sabre method is not particularly difficult, but some precautions are necessary:

• The sabre is a weapon and is dangerous;
• The tip of the bottle will fly away with force. Keep the foreseen trajectory free of obstacles and do not aim towards a closed window.
• Do not touch the top of the bottle after opening; the broken edge is razor sharp.

Champagne production splinter article?

The champagne article is getting pretty long and I cringe at the possible length if such details as the history of the Méthode champenoise is fleshed out. What do you guys think about splintering a main article on Champagne production method with a link to a summary paragraph here? Agne 22:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I recently merged Méthode Champenoise here because it looked like this. If you want to take out the entire Production section out you can simply put it in the existing article (which currently redirects here). Actually, the old text from Methode looks like a summary, maybe you could just swap them. Tocharianne 23:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea and I understand the original merge. That stub did sit in a sorry state for a long time. Agne 00:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree the Champagne article is too long, moving the production to a sepperate page is a good idea of Agne and I hope she follows through. I moved Sabrage to its own page and I intend to further improve it. Frank van Mierlo 23:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

So far we seem to have a favorable consensus. I'll wait a little longer to see if there is any dissent. Agne 00:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Both the splinter and the lead in from this article will need some work after the split. Agne 00:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

What grapes are allowed in Champagne?

The following question was left on the Champagne (disambiguation) talk page. Tocharianne 15:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The site states that currently three grapes are allowed in Champagne: chardonnay, pinot noir and pinot meunier. However, the article also states that up to five other varietals may be used. Despite a tonne of research I have been unable to find a source to back this up, or what the varietals may be. If we could find a source for this, as well as list what the other grape varietals are, that would be fantastic. User:ahbiteme 07:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The other three are: pinot blanc, petit meslier, and arbane but they aren't really grown much at all. Rescendent 13:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was oppose, withdrawn. -Patstuart^talk|edits 18:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Champagne (wine) → Champagne (beverage) — better name, recent move request had some people wanting it to be moved to (beverage), not to (wine). Patstuart^talk|edits 21:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes

Survey - Oppose votes

1. Oppose: From what I see, most of the people that stated a preference said (wine). In fact, it wasn't even close. See discussion below. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose: I wasn't a part of the original discussion but my impression was also that "wine" was preferred, plus I prefer wine. ("beverage" is just an awkward word in any context.) Tocharianne 01:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose - Wine is a better qualifier, and is consistent with other articles. Champagne isn't a special category of beverage, but a regional-based name for a particular type wine. Other French wines follow this convention - see Vouvray (wine) and Sauternes (wine) for example. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 02:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Strongly Oppose - I originally voted to either leave it as (beverage) (which it was, prior to becoming plain Champagne) simply for reduction in the workload of updating links, but preferred (wine) because it is more specific and better matches the goals of WikiProject Cocktails in specifically naming drinks, but also clearly identifies the drink as a wine, thus falling under WikiProject Wine's oversight. Now that the name has been changed to (wine) and most of the links (if not all) have been changed to (wine), my original point was moot, and the clear-cut choice is keeping it as (wine). The way I see it, (beverage) is as generic a disambiguation as you can get. ALL types of alcoholic, non-alcoholic, wines, cocktails, coffees, slurpies, sodas, and even tap water are beverages. Whenever a more specific designation exists and makes sense, it should be used. That is also my feeling about (drink), which is a less elegant version of beverage, with a slight inclination toward alcohol being included, but not always. --Willscrlt 02:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Strong Oppose This is by far the most clear and accurate term for Champagne. It is a wine and as mention above this disambiguation is consistent with how other regional wines are treated. Agne 08:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't get this. I see the following definitely saying (wine):

1. Agne27
2. Bethling
3. Vegaswikian
4. Symposiarch
5. Myleslong
6. Asterion

The following definitely saying (beverage):

1. JAYMEDINC

And the rest being a mix of Oppose and Support but don't care about (wine) or (beverage). —Wknight94 (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've rephrased the wording. -Patstuart^talk|edits 22:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Aging/Ageing

I don't really care which spelling is used, but it should be consistent throughout the article. Is the "ageing" spelling (which my dictionary lists as a "variant" of aging) more commonly used in discussions about wine? Recury 20:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Pro-Soviet POV

OK, many battles have been fought on these pages, and in the world at large, about the appellation control of the term 'champagne.' Here, we have discussed whether to capitalize 'champagne' or not among other things. A tremendous amount of time was spent on the talk page discussing nucleation and what the exact mechanism of that phenomenon is. Not necessarily time wasted since it is in the pursuit of truth. But hasn't anyone noticed the absolute invasion by a one-note-Johnny Wikipedian named "Markep1" who has unabashedly introduced Soviet POV into this article? Everything from telling us that a former Soviet region created wine making to inserting pictures of Soviet champagne into the article. It is really borderline vandalism. I think there is room for mention of this user's info in the brief section on "Champagne and the law" and that's about it. There is certainly no excuse for mention of the Sovetskoye Shampanskoye brand in the opening paragraph of an article on champagne.

While we're at it, note that Markep1 has recently created or edited articles for Sovetskoye Shampanskoye and Sparkling 1917. If you look at his user contributions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Markep1, his interest has only been in putting Soviet POV into the articles: sparkling wine, champagne (wine). Likewise, he unabashedly inserts mention of a commercial enterprise ironwolf.com into articles (including the article on champagne – LOL, not even the major houses in France or their importers/exporters are mentioned in the article) and he promotes links to the same UK importer of Soviet wines http://www.iron-wolf.co.uk/.

Markep1 has also uploaded a photo from the Sparkling 1917 website. Image:Hero bottle image1.jpg. The disclaimer he elected to use was

. He does not have the right to make this notation if he is not the owner of the copyright. If he works for the company and actually took this photo, then we see that he is editing articles not in the pursuit of academia, but for commercial purposes which is direct conflict with Wikipedia's guidelines. The Wikipedia user Markep1 may in fact work for the company since ironwolf.co.uk says that "Mark Pursey" (very close to Markep) is the Director of Iron Wolf Ltd. Either way this photo should be deleted from Wikipedia altogether.

In light of all of this, I am cleaning up the article, getting rid of the commercialism and making the mention of Soviet sparkling wine more commensurate with it's actual importance. I can't believe we argued the pilpul of nucleation forever, but have let this POV go unreverted for weeks now. 72.79.53.123 21:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)