Talk:Golan Heights Winery

Opening comment

Hi Gilabrand,

Congratualations for improving this article. If you know of any other notable Israeli wineries or wines (or anything wine-ralated) and can provide reliable, independent sources/references, please post them.

If you are interested in wine you could think about joining the Wiki-Wine-Project, here [[1]] Cheers, --BodegasAmbite (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the thumbs up, BodegasAmbite! I will do what I can.--Gilabrand (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Photos

Someone asked for the photos which are on the hebrew wikipedia. I've taken them at the winery. and I suggest to copy them straightly into english wiki. not into commons. because the license isn't fit for them. Borry 23:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I recently added a low-resolution photo of a bottle of their Chardonnay wine. A friend pointed out that the white cloth in the background looks like a Tallit (with the stripes near the bottom); No worries, however, it is not. Rather, its a decorative table cloth that I use during Shabbat. --Nsaum75 (talk) 10:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Location dispute

I correct false information by misinform editors. Golan is Syria not israel. If United State build winery or ski resort or military base in israel or other country we not say it located in United State, we say it located in country it build in. The same be truth in this situation. If jew or israel state choose build winery in SYRIAN territory it do not make it part of israel. I leave category Israeli wine because it is winery own by israelis and wine produce by israelis. but that not change fact it locate in syria territory occupy by israel. thank you Ani medjool (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC).

The categories in question are Category:Wineries of Israel and Category:Wineries of Syria. While there might be an argument if the word was "in", given that the word is "of" only Category:Wineries of Israel makes sense here. Category:Wineries of Israel should be removed. Alansohn (talk) 00:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to get in a revert war over this since the inclusion of the "Wineries of Syria" category is so completely wrong then I'm sure other rational editors will see this and take their own initiative to remove the category. In the broader scheme of things, I see no valid reason for the existence of the "Wineries of Syria" category apart from making a WP:POV oriented WP:POINT so I have put it up for deletion. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_6#Category:Category:Wineries_of_Syria. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 00:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

How can be wrong with Golan Height be recognized by every nation but israel as syrian territory occupy by israel? I simply classify it as it be. Winery locate in Golan Heights. Golan Heights be Syrian territory. So it be winery locate in syria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ani medjool (talk • contribs) 00:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Recognition of the territory means nothing. Who knows when that political dispute will be solved. But in the here and now, Golan Heights Winery is never recognized as a Syrian winery. It is that simple. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a stalemate could be reached by leaving the "Wineries of Israel" category and creating a "Wineries in Syria" category. That way both points of view could be fairly represented. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 02:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Just so I am clear, is there anyone that argues that this winery is in fact not in occupied territory? Unomi (talk) 07:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Its in the israeli-occupied Golan Heights, and the article should make this very clear. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether the winery is in occupied territory or not, this article is about the winery and the wines. Golan Heights is linked so that anybody wanting details about the Heights as such can readily find such details. It is unnecessary, and distracting, to politicize every food and drink article. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This is a wine article about a winery. There is no need to POV-push politics into this article. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, I will point out that when you got to a wine shop to buy wine from Golan Heights Winery, you are purchasing it in either the Middle East or Israel section. There are no sections in wine shops for Occupied territories and it is pointless to interject politics into an arena where it usually not dealt with. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

But you make POV and insert politic by insist that wine be from "Israel" when it not be. It not us who seek truth who make this political article, it be editor who try to add false claim about where wine originate. Ani medjool (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Its not black and white. Just because it is an "Israeli wine" doesn't mean its not from an occupied territory, to not mention this is in fact pov and censorship when the entire world sees it as occupied. The United Nations [2] United States [3] European Union[4] United Kingdom[5] Arab League[6] Yes its an article about the wine, and the wine happens to be from an Israeli occupied, territory and there is nothing wrong to mention this in one single sentence. It gives balance and neutrality. Now you guys managed to remove the "Category:Wineries of Israeli occupied territories" [7]. To have "occupied" mentioned in the lead is a compromise. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It is black and white. This is a WINE article. It is not a geography article. It is not a history article. It is not a politics article. All edits related to this article should be from a WINE perspective and only deal with content that is relevant to the WINE topic. Everything else is just pushing a political POV where it is not relevant. While I have absolutely no personal opinion (or even care about) the political conflicts of the Middle East, I am adamantly against inserting politics into wine articles where it is wholly inappropriate. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 00:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not a political POV it is the facts. No one is contesting that it is in fact in occupied territory. If anything, it is the failure to properly describe the area in neutral terms which constitutes a POV failure. Unomi (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of facts that are irrelevant to an article on the Golan Winery, with no obligation or need to include them for "neutrality". The area is not described in non-neutral terms or any other terms. Nothing misleading about that. Nobody is even saying the area is in Israel. For those who want to branch off into other dimensions, a link is given to a detailed article about the Golan. I see no reason for the political status of the area to be emphasized. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Again I must reject the notion that this is about political status. That this area is occupied territory is not a 'political' question, it is a matter of international law. We follow international consensus in our naming of countries and areas rather than the minority views of political factions. The way that the article is currently structured is precisely a violation of NPOV and a failure to neutralize political views. Unomi (talk) 08:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This is getting to be ridiculous. No views, minority or majority. The naming is accurate. It's called the Golan Heights. Hertz1888 (talk) 08:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed getting ridiculous, there is no question in the eyes of international law that this is occupied territory. Structuring the article as if this is an accepted part of Israel is a gross violation of WP:NPOV specifically WP:GEVAL. Unomi (talk) 08:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Watching from the sidelines, it appears to me that Unomi is attempting to twist policy around a personal point of view. Sorry, such wikilawyering won't work here. There is nothing in the article that says anything, or needs to say anything, about the occupation status of the Golan Heights. The place name is what it is. This is an article about a winery. Making a WP:POINT about the political situation surrounding the place is disruptive and completely irrelevant to the scope of this article. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you really think there is no political point being made if we say that the Golan Heights is an Israeli wine region? nableezy - 18:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you asking me or Unomi? The article should state that this is an Israeli winery (it is) and that it operates out of the Golan Heights (it does). Nothing more needs to be said. If anyone wants more information on the region, they can look at the Golan Heights article. That's why we have separate articles on different subjects. This article is about a winery. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I was asking you and anybody else saying that adding "occupied" is pushing a political POV but that removing "occupied" is not. I really, truly, do not care at all about this article. But the problem that others are having is that this wine article implies that a portion of Syrian territory occupied by Israel is in fact Israeli territory. Yes, the occupation of the Golan is not all that important to the topic of wine, but when we say that there is an "Israeli winery" in an "Israeli wine region" we are saying that this winery is in Israel and that the Golan is a part of Israel. You dont see the political POV there? nableezy - 18:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that the absence of a word pushes a POV. That's like saying the absence of hair equates to a hair color. The article should not state anything about the occupation status of the Golan Heights, because it is irrelevant.

I notice that Unomi just created a category of companies in occupied territories and stuck in in this article. That's a reasonable compromise, I suppose, although I don't really see the usefulness of that category. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The absence of "occupied" is a POV, because the article is written so it imply s that Golan is Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. The article is written to say nothing of the Golan Heights. It links to the Golan Heights where the reader can be have all the political details presented. Rather, the article is written to say that this particular Israeli winery is located in the Golan Heights. That's it. This is a wine article, dealing with a winery. It is not a political article and it is pure POV-pushing to try and turn it into one. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Lets take the first sentence and replace "Katzrin" and "Golan Heights"... for example: "The XXXX Winery is an Israeli winery located in Safed, in the Galille."... you see? By not mentioning the reality, the worldview, that it is occupied, the reader thinks he is reading about an area in Israel. So that is pov. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

One more question, if you would not mind indulging me. You dont see the POV with the words "the Israeli Golan Heights" but do see it in "the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights"? nableezy - 18:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Non sequitur. The article doesn't say that (and either one would be bad). The article says it's an Israeli winery operating out of the Golan Heights. If anyone is confused about whether the Golan Heights is, or isn't, part of Israel, they can read the Golan Heights article. That's why it's there. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Under the image it says: "from the Israeli Golan Heights Winery" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Woops, I didn't notice the caption. You're right, thanks for pointing it out. I was referring to the article text in my comments above. I have fixed the caption to state the name of the winery. The nationality of the winery isn't important to mention in the caption, as the article already makes it clear. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a non sequitur as you said "I don't see that the absence of a word pushes a POV". The example I gave clearly shows that the absence of a word can push a POV. nableezy - 19:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Section break

• Amatulic makes an excellent point. It is just pure WP:POINT-pushing to insert irrelevant details into the article. It like having any article pertaining to anything located in Huntington, West Virginia always having the phrase "Located in Huntington, West Virginia, determined by the Centers for Disease Control to be the unhealthiest city in the United States...." in the article. While that statement maybe tangibly relevant in an article about a restaurant located in Huntington, WV it would be completely inappropriate to include in an article such as the Museum of Radio and Technology located in Huntington. Not every article linking to Huntington, WV needs to point out that it is the fattest city in America just as not every article linking to the Golan Heights needs to dive into the political circumstances of that area. Where it is relevant and encyclopedic, it should be included. Where it is not (such as an article about a winery), people should give the POV-pushing a break. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It is precisely and exactly to remove the extant pov that it must be mentioned that it is in Israeli-occupied territory. That is about as pov as mentioning that time cube is pseudoscience. Unomi (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

So, according to your logic, it is POV to not mention in the Museum of Radio and Technology article that the museum is located in the fattest city in America? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Unomi, the absence of a word doesn't imply a POV any more than baldness implies a hair color as I stated above. The presence of the word does imply a POV, however, and only serves to make an irrelevant WP:POINT in the article. There are Croatian wineries in Croatia, but also elsewhere such as California. Similarly, there are Israeli wineries in Israel itself, as well as elsewhere. It is sufficient to say that the winery is Israeli, and it's in the Golan Heights. Making an irrelevant point about the occupation status of the Golan Heights serves no purpose whatsoever beyond making a political point. And this is a winery article. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

What you bring up is irrelevant and had nothing to do with the situation in this article.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to have escaped you that my points and analogies have everything to do with this article. You calling it "irrelevant" doesn't make it so. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Its a wine article and the fact that this Israeli wine is manufactured outside of Israel, in an Israeli occupied territory is important to mention, because french wines are made in France and Italian wines are made in Italy and Spanish wines are made in Spain. Israel is the only country who manufactures its wine outside of its nation and this must be clearly mentioned and it give balance. Its one single sentence. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually that is not unique. While I haven't written the History of Alsace wine article yet, the territory of Alsace has flipped hands between Germany and France many times and in the late 19th century you had, at one point, French winemakers making French wine and German winemakers making German wine in the same town! Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

What you yourself will put in a future article is of no importance to anything. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You have made an invalid argument about uniqueness. Israel has several companies in occupied territories. So what? The United States also has companies in its territories as well (such as in Guam and Puerto Rico). This isn't a unique circumstance, and certainly not one that needs emphasis to "balance" this article.

There is already a new category in this article, showing that this winery is in an Israeli occupied territory. I think that's a good compromise. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness, why don't you just drop it already. You are clearly out of your league here trying to push your anti-Israel POV into a simple non-political article. Your continued attempt to clutter up many Israeli articles with controversies and politics is simple disruptive to the WP project and clearly bad faith. Lighten up. --Shuki (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not 'anti-israel' to properly inform the reader of the facts. Trying to keep facts out of articles would be a closer fit to being disruptive to the WP project. Unomi (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Inserting irrelevant facts is most disruptive and suggests an agenda of POV-pushing. The occupation status of the Golan Heights is irrelevant to this article, as has been pointed out numerous times above by different editors. You already have the category in this article. Leave it at that, it's a fair compromise. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not consider it POV-pushing, but I accept the compromise. I thank you for your time and will extract myself from the conversation. Unomi (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Complaints regarding classification

I was made aware by User:Tomas_e that I had misread this article in Haaretz. I had understood that this would have affected the print label on the bottles but apparently it would only have affected shelf and catalogue categorization. Tomas_e also indicates that GHW did not object to the change in practice, yet this is directly contradicted by the Haaretz source:

Sweden has started to note that wines produced in the Golan Heights originate in "Israel, occupied Syrian land," the Golan Heights Winery has informed the Israeli Embassy in Sweden. ... The Golan Heights Winery approached the commercial attache at the Israeli Embassy in Stockholm this week, and requested Foreign Ministry intervention.

I realize that many here understand this article to be about wine, yet it remains about a company and information which has received note in RS should be considered for inclusion on that basis. At the moment the article reads fairly promotional in nature. Thank you for your thoughts and comments, Unomi (talk) 11:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The information needs to be in the article, its relevant to the topic.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The excerpt you have shared from Haaretz is not the same as what was included in the Wikipedia article. It's as simple as that. Breein1007 (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Israeli wine#Wine regions already has text about this incident. Frankly, I don't think it belongs in that article, and I wouldn't object if that text were moved here, provided it's an accurate representation of the cited sources, and the sources are valid. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

That text must always be in that article because its about "Wine regions" where Golan is mentioned, it must clearly say that its not part of Israel proper. We can have it in both articles. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The text is a tad on the WP:UNDUE side. Sweden is a very small wine market and its prominent presence in the article gives the impression that it represents far more of the world's wine sales when, in fact, isolated incidences like this impact only a fraction of a percent of the world's wine sales. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no impression that it represents far more of the world's wine sales. It specifically says that its about Sweden, nothing else. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. Read WP:UNDUE for a better understanding of what Agne is referring to. Breein1007 (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Its not Undue weight. Its information with direct relevance to the topic, Golan Heights Wine. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It's undue weight for the exact reason that Agne explained. At this point you are simply saying "no" without addressing the issue. :-o Breein1007 (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The only one saying "no" is you, I already explained why there is no impression that it represents far more of the world's wine sales [8] Then you came and just repeated the exact same thing Agne said above. Great debating! --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Your comments just show that you still have not read WP:UNDUE (or possibly that you have failed to understand it). Either way, it's clear that the text is inappropriate as it violates the policy. Whether or not you are willing to accept that doesn't really matter. Breein1007 (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I have read it, and the text does not violate undue weight.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Stating that Sweden constitutes a small market does not make the reporting of GWH asking the Foreign ministry to intervene on their behalf fall to WP:UNDUE. That the company thought it necessary to approach the Foreign Ministry invalidates the basis of negligible marketshare, that the consequence of their objection was for the Systembolaget to rescind their decision gives evidence of the notability of their actions. Unomi (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there was no indication in Swedish press at that time that the winery itself was involved in making any requests. The wines involved were actually the only Kosher wines distributed by Systembolaget at the time, so the presentation of these wines (which is also reflected on their website) were naturally highly visible to the Jewish customers in Sweden, who were probably the ones complaining in return. By the way, this is how the product page for Golan Height's Yarden Chardonnay looks like. Land = country, Övriga ursprung = other origins. Even if your Swedish is a little rusty you can compare to a wine from a region apparently widely recognised as being in Israel which comes with a small Israeli flag and for example Chateau Musar which comes with a small Lebanese flag. Sometime I have to remember to take a picture of a bottle and its Systembolaget shelf label together... Tomas e (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

There may not have been such indication in the Swedish press, but the Israeli newspaper Haaretz did make it clear that Golan Heights Wine had asked the Foreign Ministry to intervene, see the source at the start of this section. That systembolaget now denotes the origin as being other could reasonably be interpreted as a successful intervention. Unomi (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

here is another source

"When it comes to wine, no one asks whether it was made in occupied territory or not," an Israeli official said.

Golan Heights winery CEO Shalom Blayer said that he was infuriated by the Swedish decision. "It appears that some clerk in Sweden really 'likes' us. we will continue to sell wines with the Golan Heights label, because this is where the wine comes from. Whoever doesn’t like it, can refrain from buying the wine. We're not selling politics," he said.

Unomi (talk) 02:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI, the use of "other origins" has been in use for almost four years; the Systembolaget press release about it is dated June 9, 2006. The "occupied" version can't have been in use for more than a couple of weeks, maximum. The story seems to have hit the news around June 4, 2006 (five days before the second change), when it is mentioned as "recent change". Tomas e (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, the fact that the campaign to get systembolaget to rescind changes to its categorization practice was so effective does not decrease the mention-worthiness of it. If this article was about any other company then I don't think we would be having this discussion, the fact that it is a wine company does not change the article to be about wine, it is still about a company and noteworthy interactions this company has had warrant mention. That the company is on record as having approached the Foreign Ministry in order to affect change in a sovereign country's practices is noteworthy. Unomi (talk) 07:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Created a sub category specially for Israeli companies operating in the occupied territories so we can put all those together for easy navigation.[9] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

New sub cat to a cat currently under cfd is not good faith and might be considered sneaky. --Shuki (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"Category:Israeli companies operating in the occupied territories" is a separate category and is not up for cfd, you have removed it without explaining why it should be removed.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, please stop attempt to mislead reader about where company operate by "Israel". This be pov push and go against nutral. Ani medjool (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I explained quite clearly the reason, stop wasting my time. Ani, whatever you say. Soon you will claim that this company is not Israeli. --Shuki (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Israel vs Israeli.

The winery does not belong to Israel nor is it owned by the government of Israel. It is owned and operated by Israelis. Israelis may own a club in the US but that doesnt make it an Israeli club. The same applies here. SyrianKing (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC).

Israeli company. Government has nothing to do with it. Please sign your comments - thanks. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Microsoft would be called an American company at any of its facilities, anywhere in the world. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Non neutral edit

Concerning this: [10], Yarden Cabernet Sauvignon is not from Israel, its from the Golan Heights Winery:[11] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

How about "first Israeli wine" then?—Biosketch (talk) 10:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

How come you came to this article right after I edited it? What I do know is that its not from Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, especially where other editors are trying to civilly collaborate with you. just like you, Biosketch edits numerous articles related to Israel, and it makes little sense to attack him if you happen to edit one article before he does.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Golan Heights Winery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100509004407/http://www.businessweek.com:80/smallbiz/content/jan2008/sb20080116_186026.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/jan2008/sb20080116_186026.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.wines-israel.co.il/len/ascrolling%20news/41243.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090414192338/http://yardenwines.com:80/index.html to http://www.yardenwines.com/index.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 20:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Golan Heights Winery. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/jan2008/sb20080116_186026.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724182214/http://www.norwatch.no/200809211130/english/other/sells-wine-from-occupied-area.html to http://www.norwatch.no/200809211130/english/other/sells-wine-from-occupied-area.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://yardenwines.com/index.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 15:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)