Talk:Judgment of Paris (wine)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Scientific"?[edit]

The first two sub headings under the "controversies" section make liberal use of the term "scientific." The first item says "Some critics suggest that wine tastings lack scientific validity" This seems a strange wording to me. Are there any people who suggest that taste tests or similar contests are scientific endeavors and that they DO possess scientific validity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.221.152 (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Stag's Leap Wine Cellars v. Stags' Leap Winery[edit]

Not to be confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.137.86 (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Red Results[edit]

I'm a bit confused. I was just double checking some of the facts and I noticed a discrepancy in the red results. The results on page 203 of Judgement of Paris are not consistent with the results in the Appendix of the book, and neither matches the results shown in the article. The difference between the results shown on page 203 and those in the appendix could be explained by one of them including the scores from the hosts, Gallagher and Spurrier. I would correct this article if I knew which set of results were correct. Gregmg 01:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi greg-

Congratulations on being so observant! It appears that the results in the Appendix are the correct ones. Montrose and Haut-Brion --Kharker 21:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)are reversed between the two sets of results. However, adding the individual scores for the nine judges for Montrose yields a score of 122 points. This is consistent with the Appendix list.David Justin 17:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David - the red list currently has 5 and 6 mixed up (e.g. 6 Leoville Las Cases and then 5 Monte Bello) - which is right? I was under the impression that positions 2345 were French (e.g. the ordering is right but the numbers wrong.) But I don't have a reference for that right now and I can see some webpages indeed have 5 Monte Bello, 6 Las Cases. -- Blorg 15:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected the error based on the list provided in Taber's Judgment of Paris, page 203.BMackey 20:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many references are Spam, parked domains... Dragolight 01:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

??? Which references are you referring to? This article only has three external links, and they seem appropriate. Gregmg 01:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

contest is a joke[edit]

This contest is a joke: the american winners of 1976 refuse to compete today. Pixeltoo 16:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like sour grapes to me. Since the winners of 1976 didn't even know they were competing in 1976, I can't imagine why a refusual would matter today. There have been numerous rematches since '76. Where did you hear that anyone had refused to complete in another such event? Gregmg 20:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're the joke pixe. The Yanks beat'em in two(2) rematches. HaHa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.23.52 (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To me the biggest joke is that they didn't invite wines from Spain, Italy, Chile or Argentina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:9201:770D:684C:34F3:92B3:CBCA (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

USA -- Back-to-back champs in world wars and all-time champs in international wine competitions! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.137.86 (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig page move[edit]

See Talk:Judgment of Paris (disambiguation) for more details. AgneCheese/Wine 20:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bottle photos or labels?[edit]

It may be impossible to get free images of the tasting itself, but maybe someone with these vintages could have photos taken of the bottles? --Kharker 21:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on assessment[edit]

This one seems like a borderline B, leaning towards start, and I would like to get some extra opinions. Here is a listing of my concerns.

  • The lead is very weak and doesn't do a good job summarizing the article per WP:LEAD.
  • There is little discussion on the background and early history of the tasting
  • Very small sections on the Conclusion & Impact on wine that doesn't really give due credit to the scope and signifigance of the event, particularly for the Californian wine industry and the Globalization of wine. AgneCheese/Wine 23:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be quite honest, the more I've looked at the article, the more I'm sort of questioning both the "B" part and the "High" part. Regarding the B - it's list-dominated, it's filled with "gossipy" rather nonencyclopedic content (one unnamed taster thought this and another said that - gimme a break!), it's rather US-POV, and it seems to be written on the assumption that "wine" is a kind of competitive sports rather than an agricultural business, a consumer good, something you pair with food... Regarding the "High" - while a notable event, it seems to have been and remain a much more emotional event in the US than in the "outside world", as evidenced by the upcoming film(s). To me, this is more like a Mid/Start article, in comparison to other WP:WINE articles. Tomas e (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...and a little clarification: with that I mean that I wasn't planning to change the assessment myself (since it is a much less emotional subject to me than it seems to be to some Americans, judging from outside the wikiworld), but that it might perhaps be enlightening to hear how a non-French European (equally used to wines from both the old and the new world, but somewhat inclined to the former) reads this article. Tomas e (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like I mentioned above, it does seem like it is leaning to start and I would have no problem with it being downgraded. As for the importance, I think High is about right. It is an important event in the history of American (particularly Californian), wine and could be considered of some significance to the broad span of New World wine since it was one of the earliest times that New World wine was considered on par with the historical "great" French wines. In terms of wine history, it is rather on par with the Bordeaux Wine Official Classification of 1855 (similarly rated high) for at least its significance to the American wine industry. AgneCheese/Wine 09:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging[edit]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 06:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

100-point comparison[edit]

I don't think we need Maelga's new 100-point comparison. It was not historically present and, when placed right next to the 20-point system, it is rendered unnecessary. Since the 100-point equivalents were calculated by Maelga, it falls under original research. I'd like to drop it and trim back to displaying only the 20-point system. Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. There was no 100-point system in place in '76, so it's not relevant to this article. I suggest you follow the credo to "be bold" and make the necessary edits.gregmg
Okay, the 100-point columns is remitted to the bit bucket. Sorry for the deletion, Maelga; I know how painstakingly tough it is to put together a good wikitable. I appreciate your fantastic additions to this article. Binksternet (talk) 06:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

White results[edit]

we still need numbers for the White results table. Who has these? Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who really came off better?[edit]

I have always seen this event presented as a victory for California wines; and the article confirms this view. But looking at the results (red only - the white numbers are missing), I see that the average French red score was 13.03, the average Californian score was 11.03. This looks to me like a French victory. But I guess Taber got his report in first, and no-one since has looked too closely at the actual data. Maproom (talk) 10:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And all the judges put French wines first too... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.118.67.5 (talk) 12:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No they did not!!! It's really pitiful that people are still trying to change the rules of the tasting to get a different result. The Americans make good wine and Europeans can't bring themselves to admit it. Pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.41.105 (talk) 04:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We all know that Americans make good wine. But the data in the article show that in the 1976 tasting, French wines scored better. Maproom (talk) 10:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a whole, your statement is correct albeit imprecise. Statistically, the American reds had a wider range of quality, and the French reds were more consistent. Stag's Leap average ranking among the other wines is still the best: (Including ties) Four 1st place votes, Three 2nd place votes, Two 3rd place votes, One 5th place vote, One 6th place vote, and One 8th place vote. However, both American reds of Mayacamas Vineyards and Freemark Abbey Winery were consistently ranked the worst. The American reds ultimately ranked 1st, 5th, 6th (tied with a French), 8th, and two 9th place finishes. The French reds ranked 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 6th (tied with an American). This is a relatively simple analysis of averaging the relative rankings on each ballot and averaging (mean) them. I do think we are missing an important point though. At the time, the French view was that Americans were completely incapable of making a superior wine. Even though only one red succeeded here, this contest shattered this myth. (I would love to see the raw scorecards for the whites to verify the same is true there.)--Bark (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Such an average of ranking is don here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-H_sz1_gMXwsYp-XucDFADjI55kYEeOLN8xsp7QzvkY/edit?usp=sharing Please email shermath@umich.edu if anything is unclear. It seems Haut-Brion actually had the lowest average ranking! Shermath (talk) 06:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tastevin foundation (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)As an old friend of Steven Spurrier, I have talked to him and to three of the French Judges in the competition. The judges were told they would be judging California wines and they judged the California wines by themselves. However as a surprise they were then told they would judge some French wines which they did and rated the French wines. In the end some California wines had higher scores within the California wine group, so it was said that they beat the French wines, which of course they did not do. These were two separate ratings of two different groups of wines.[reply]

Hmm.. This seems counter to the following sources:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlCRWqNF4xE&t=353s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzuyG33r6kQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQm8UOAykfc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlziSyPZ-gs
I am writing to George M Taber to see if he will elaborate on this detail. Hopefully he responds! Shermath (talk) 06:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

individual votes for white wines?[edit]

where is the judge-by-judge tally of votes for the white wines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.222.229.206 (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

from the 30th anniversary article, now redirected here[edit]

Holy cow this title is incidiary. An interesting rematch yes, Rematch of the Century, isn't that a bit over the top?!? Mikecase00 17:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


--What's incindary about it?

Ok, people, lets agree there's nothing incendiary about it at all.

--Which wine tasting was more important than the Paris Wine Tasting of 1976????BMackey 02:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


It's incindiary because, one, that's not the official title of the tasting, and two, naming anything the "vintage of the century", the "tasting of the century", the "rematch of the century" is laughable when we're only 6 years into the century. I can't think of a single scholarly work where the superlative "of the century" would be used. It's just over-the-top sensationalisim.

Mikecase00 19:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1970 was not a great/historic/legendary year in Bordeaux!

Saying 1970 was the best vintage for Pauillac between 1961 and 1982 is faint praise. Of course, at the time 1970 was looked on as a very good vintage, it was surrounded by 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, and 74 all poor years for Bordeaux, some are considered amongst the worst vintages of the entire 20th century. Additionally, Margaux, Lafite, and several other top growths were all mired in qualitative slumps at the time. No knowledgable Bordeaux expert one would argue that anything from Medoc between 61 and 82 could be considered a great year or rank any of those vintages as the "Best of the Best".

I realize that by painting 1970 as a great year for Bordeaux it makes the results of the tasting look more significant, so it's pretty clear why it keeps getting pushed into the article. I just want it made clear that it's hardly an accepted fact that 1970 was a great year for Bordeaux outside of Pomerol, and that it's pretty obviously the editor's own POV when it's included in the article.

I'm not trying to refute the results of the tasting, the wines from the Medoc clearly lost, as they should have, but these are clearly not the best examples of what Bordeaux is capable of. For that they would need something from 61, 82, 86, 90, or 2000. Mikecase00 17:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


1970 was among the four best vintages in 45 years according to Conseil Interprofessionel du Vin de Bordeaux!

Mike- Your disagreement should be with the Conseil Interprofessionel du Vin de Bordeaux, which has rated 1970 as among the four best vintages in the past 45 years. Constantly trying to find someone who disagrees with it suggests POV in trying to minimize the significance of the results of the Paris Wine Tasting of 1976, the Ottawa Wine Tasting of 1981, the French Culinary Institute Wine Tasting of 1986 and The Judgment of Paris 30th Anniversary, all of which used that historically outstanding vintage.

You say that the French wines were poor and should have lost because they were so bad. However, that’s clearly not the reaction of the judges at the Paris competition, some of whom claimed deception, wanted their ballots back so they could change their scores, and still refuse to talk about the event to this day. It wasn’t the reaction of the French wine industry, which punished the event organizer for accidentally embarrassing it. It wasn’t the reaction of the growers who ran him off their property and told him never to return. It wasn’t the reaction of the vintners, some of whom wrote angry letters to the winning winemakers insisting that French wines are better than California wine “in principle” and always will be superior. And it wasn’t the reaction of the French press, which largely ignored, downplayed and trivialized the results.

You suggest that the 1982, 1986, 1990 or 2000 vintages might have been able to beat the California upstarts. But those cherry-picked vintages weren't around in 1976. And you suggest stacking the deck even more by using the 1961 vintage, which is one of the two or three best vintages of the entire 20th century. All of this to try to beat wineries, two of which were only four years old!

If the period of over two decades in the 1960s and 1970s was characterized by such poor and mediocre vintages as you indicate, then the region must have been unfairly coasting on its reputation and its high prices were exploiting the deceived consumer, as Robert Parker has suggested.BMackey 02:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Note I said that the Bordeaux wines should have lost when their 1970's were included in the tastings you mention. I also pointed out that at the time several of the best estates were in fact coasting on their reputations and not making the most of their vineyards. My issue is simply with the idea that 1970 should be considered one og the greatest years for Bordeaux, when in fact, it's surpassed by 2000, 1998, 1996, 1995, 1990, 1988, 1986, 1985, 1982. That's 9 vintages that are generally considered superior to 1970 outside of Pomerol. It's hard to imagine how the Bordeaux Council ranks 1970 above these if Pomerol is factored out.

Let me reiterate, I'm not disputing the results of the Paris tasting, The Bordeaux wines have been shown inferior several times now, but given what Bordeaux was producing at the time they deserved to loose. I object to the idea that Bordeaux wines included in the tasting are representative of the best of what Bordeaux is capable of producing. 71.104.191.254 15:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]



The Emperor Has No Clothes

The owners of 30 of the best wines in the world, in the judgment of a Champagne company president, were invited to a party in 1997. The event was organized by Jean-Claude Rouzaud to celebrate the 30th anniversary of his presidency of Champagne Louis Roederer. Half of his selections were from France. "I’m a chauvinist and a nationalist" he explained.

"Before agreeing to participate, the Bordeaux first growths set some conditions, the foremost being that no comparative tasting with their international competition would be held." They didn’t even want to be included in a group photo with their colleagues from other wine regions, although they finally reluctantly agreed. "But getting the Bordelais to have their wines served with the others', that was out of the question," said a Roederer spokesperson.

So the event took place in two separate parts: first, a dinner featuring the Bordeaux wines; then a tasting the next day with all the other wines, but no Bordeaux.

"They are cowards," said a non-Bordeaux producer. But the host said "I understand them." He explained that "They feel that when you are first growths you are untouchable." Their problem is that they actually know better.

They and the other growth vineyards have a carefully cultivated image of superiority. This is a marketing advantage worth an incredibly enormous sum of money every year. However, they frequently fail to perform well in comparisons and realize how vulnerable they are to exposure and the destruction of their vaulted and very valuable reputations.

Because of this the 1-5 growths (1) want to avoid comparisons and (2) try to discredit the results of such comparisons . Who can blame them? Those results can cost them a fortune in lost revenue.

Party in Paris. Wine Spectator, 15-11-97 [1]Vinifera 14:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HOAX[edit]

Another hoax, thanks to the wine industry business, only the consumer get screwed, not Bordeaux still selling at ridiculous prices some of its worst vintages, and certainly not Napa fermentation industry! Anyway, anyone knowing about wines, knows that public "blind tasting" by experts has no value since they are far from being blind with wines! In addition, for sample, anyone can check that a Haut-Brion it is not a 75% Cabernet! More around 50% Cabernet, 25% Merlot and 25% Cabernet Franc… Only cheaters would get involved in tastings like this one. Anyone citing something from the "Wine Spectator" is a joke about wine or a professional making money thanks to people credulity and lack of honesty. Dragolight 21:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is obvious that wikipedia has been used as a advertising arena. I've read about the growing importance of this type of wine in the UK. But worse than this (California has Mediterranean climate, but not Canada), look at this one: Ottawa_Wine_Tasting_of_2005. They are taking consumers as idiots. there are several articles with these hoaxes (NPOV: advertising articles) in wikipedia. New world wine are spotted by their homogenized/instantaneous flavour and sugar flavour, while old world wines often have a changing flavour. Even non-experts can taste the difference. --Pedro 02:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax allegation[edit]

Many people intensely and understandably dislike the results of the Wine Spectator Wine Tasting of 1986 wine competition; you can enjoy the company of a very large group of people. However, you've provided no evidence of either a hoax or a conspiracy. The allegations in "French Bordeaux competition" are not supported by, nor are they consistent with, CellarNotes and other sources of price information. The material in "Vintage charts comparison" is redundant, except that the last sentence lacks support.Hal Birch 02:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)— Hal Birch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Agreed. These tastings are definetly not Hoaxes. I think the methodology was flawed and the results generally misconstrued, but that's debatable.


OMG....this title![edit]

It takes up nearly the entire width of the screen-not to mention the POV issues. Can't we think of something better? How about 30th Anniversary of the Judgment of Paris? Agne 04:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but how about

(more meaningful to the casual surfer, imo) Regards -- Steve.Moulding 14:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. The original page name was just a slogan used by nobody at all (see Mike Case's comment at top of the the page) so I went for the official title. I think The Judgment of Paris 30th Anniversary would probably be best as it draws from the official title and JoP seems to be used a lot by journalists. Nunquam Dormio 19:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah...now I see where it was coming from. I agree that the original title had serious issues. This one just shocked me with its length. I could live with The Judgment of Paris 30th Anniversary. Agne 20:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, despite the popularity of JoP with journalists, the wikipedia page is called Paris_Wine_Tasting_of_1976 and the wikipedia page Judgment of Paris is something else altogether. Paris_Wine_Tasting_of_1976 : 30th Anniversary (or some variation) provides context, removes the possibiity of confusion, and shows that it is directly related to, and is indeed an extension of, the original article. Anyway, just my opinion. All suggestions are better than the original :-) Regards Steve.Moulding 21:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, good point about the original Judgment of Paris article. I honestly think that article should be moved to Judgment of Paris (mythology) with a disambig page for the phrase Judgment of Paris. The big thing that I see here, is that it is quite common for the 1976 tasting to be called the Judgment of Paris and not just by journalist. I think most of my customers and fellow winos who are even aware of the Paris tasting know it more as the Judgment of Paris then the 1976 Paris Tasting. In fact, I've seen and heard countless references to the "famous" 19'75, 1970 and 1986 Paris tastings then I would like to remember. :p. Agne 22:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Judgment of Paris (mythology), Judgment of Paris (wine) plus the disambig, and then move this to The Judgment of Paris 30th Anniversary Regards -- Steve.Moulding 22:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now the million dollar question will be if the editors of the mythology page will go for it. I'll ask to get the ball rolling. Agne 22:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1976 results here dont look right[edit]

Disambig page created. Discussion about Primary topic[edit]

See Talk:Judgment of Paris (disambiguation) for more details. AgneCheese/Wine 21:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging[edit]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 06:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge suggestion[edit]

I can't really see why this "rematch" should be in a separate article. The only interest and notability of the subject is to see the result in relation to the original tasting, and that's easier to discuss by having all the material in one article. It might also be noted that recently, a couple of articles recording results of individual wine tastings have been put up for AfD and deleted, indicating that the "general" community of editors aren't that happy with a lot of articles recording the results of wine tastings. Tomas e (talk) 10:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Much of the material here is already in the article about the original tasting. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I shall go ahead with the redirect in the next week or so. First I will remove material that's already in the main article and then transfer what's left. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Judgment of Paris (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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

this article needs more references[edit]

The wines, judges, and results sections are completely unreferenced. —howcheng {chat} 07:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Judgment of Paris (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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Table Problems[edit]

Hello,

I've noticed that the average score is actually the average score of all tasters (including Gallagher and Spurrier). Given how the article is organized--mentioning that G & S's results are discounted for account of them not being French--I propose that the tables average only the French-based scores. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-H_sz1_gMXwsYp-XucDFADjI55kYEeOLN8xsp7QzvkY/edit?usp=sharing This is a link of my analysis of the tasting. It includes some more levels of analysis not relevant to my comment, but you can see that the average values on the current wiki table correspond to all scores included. My analysis also includes the values of the table that correspond to the non-French being excluded. Email me shermath@umich.edu if any elaboration is needed. I hope to see the table updated with the French-only scores.

Cheers! Shermath (talk) 06:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Judgment_of_Paris_(wine)&oldid=1207873155"