# Talk:Zinfandel

After all, it was the owner of Grgich Hills who helped fund the study to identify Zinfandel - and I might say he produces a superior Zinfandel wine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.67.225 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-29

Yes, I've had some excellent Zinfandels from Croatian wineries in California. I think, though, that financial contributors to a research effort aren't really relevant to this article, even if one of the contributors happens to make wine. More relevant would be a description of the research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amatulic (talk • contribs) 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This suggests that the origin of the grape if Dalmatia, the origin of the name is from Hungary, and the reasin is a mislabeling:
http://www.nytimes.com/1986/04/02/garden/l-zinfandel-s-origins-390586.html
Timur lenk (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I know this is an old comment, but it deserves a reply.
It's a letter to the editor, which we wouldn't be able to cite. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello everyone,
I’m a relatively new editor and prefer to work in consensus with experienced and objective editors. My intention is to help by making the article more complete and verifiable, while fully respecting Wikipedia’s core policies — WP:NPOV and WP:V.
While reading through the Zinfandel page, I have noticed a few areas that could (or should) be improved with additional reliable sources — especially newer peer-reviewed studies and well-documented historical materials. This addition is in line with WP:CSB. 
Since the Zinfandel article already presents the Croatian and Italian aspects in detail, there are also peer-reviewed and historical references that document Kratošija (Kra-tosh-ee-ah) — the Montenegrin grape variety which is confirmed by DNA studies to represent the same cultivar as Zinfandel / Primitivo / Tribidrag.
Knowing the significance of the Kratošija name and its connection to the Zinfandel story, as well as the importance of new scientific findings that support historical records, I believe this information deserves inclusion — supported strictly by reliable sources.
Another subject I would like to point out is the matter connected with the structure itself in the “Distribution and wines” section. I have noticed inconsistency between the title and the accompanying text. I also noticed that both the historical reference to “Cratosia” and the genetic identification of Kratošija currently appear in this section. These details don’t actually relate to that section, which focuses mainly on modern wine production, vineyards, and the types of wines produced across regions (California, Italy, Croatia, etc.).
Montenegro is currently listed under “Other regions” with non-specific data, and the content there refers more to historical documentation (not entirely accurate) and DNA research than to actual vineyards and wine production. Finally, the current title “Distribution and wines” might also be reconsidered, since it primarily evokes commercial distribution and, to be honest, may not fully match the content that follows (wine regions, vineyards, and the descriptions of wines). Perhaps a title like “Vineyard regions and wine” or “Zinfandel wine regions and wine characteristics” could fit better — though of course that should be open for discussion and consensus.
Therefore, for better logical flow and accuracy, and considering the significance of Kratošija, it might make sense to:

Move Kratošija out of the “Other regions” section and assign a separate subsection.
Kratošija is the most important and indigenous Montenegrin grape variety, accounting for around 90% of the vineyards in the Skadar Lake Basin region, although it is present across all viticultural areas of Montenegro. Numerous scientific papers (verified data and references are available), as well as the renowned wine writer Jancis Robinson, also confirm this. On her educational website Terroirs du Monde Education, it is stated, among other things, that:  “Kratošija is the main and probably the oldest Montenegrin variety. The grape variety is dominant in all vineyards older than 60–70 years. Furthermore, it often represents about 90% of the grape varieties in the Skadar subregion, and is even more prevalent in the coastal area.”  

Second, move the historical note about Kratošija to the “History” section (with appropriate, verified and verifiable references, along with a suitable brief explanation, since those are not fully correct). I will return to this subject as a separate issue later. Also, in this section, add appropriate data that belong, in terms of meaning, to this section.
And third, move (integrate) the DNA identification of Kratošija into the section “Relationship with Primitivo, Crljenak Kaštelanski and Tribidrag," with reference examples:
- Calò, Antonio; Costacurta, Angelo; Maraš, Vesna; Meneghetti, Stefano; Crespan, Manna (2008). "Molecular correlation of Zinfandel (Primitivo) with Austrian, Croatian, and Hungarian cultivars and Kratošija, an additional synonym." American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 59 (2): 121–127. [1]  
- Maraš, V.; Popović, T.; Gazivoda, A.; Raičević, J.; Kodžulović, V.; Mugoša, M.; Šućur, S. (2015). "Origin and characterization of Montenegrin grapevine varieties." [2]
Several other reliable DNA sources also exist, which will be addressed later on the talk page.
These adjustments would improve structure and factual consistency while adding verifiable and scientifically supported context. 
If editors find this relevant, I can provide full reference details, original quotes, and short example wording for each section so we can review and refine it together.
I’d prefer to start gradually and work toward consensus, inviting feedback from neutral editors interested in the subject.
My only goal is to support a balanced, well-sourced, and verifiable presentation of this topic, in line with Wikipedia’s encyclopedic standards. I believe that for any content, the type of source is of crucial importance. You know, a newspaper article — no matter how reputable it may be — just can’t really be compared to a scientific paper, a doctoral dissertation, or experimentally verified research. For Wikipedia, such sources are far more reliable and should not be overlooked, ignored, or omitted in any way, as this seriously affects the accuracy and verifiability of the article. And of course, science moves forward and new discoveries are constantly emerging… We have to stay in line with that. I’m sure you’ll agree with me on that.
With sincere respect and appreciation for your work.  
@Jonesey95, Liz, Agne27,  and Bethling: – pinging neutral editors and a few active contributors who might be interested; your input would be welcome if you have time. — VitisArchivum (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Follow-up (10 November 2025):

I propose adding this historical subsection to provide sourced documentation from Montenegrin, Italian, international and regional ampelographic sources — confirming the independent historical record of Kratošija (the Montenegrin synonym of Zinfandel/Tribidrag) in the Statuta civitatis Buduae (Budva Statutes, 1426–1442) and subsequent scientific references.
These sources collectively show a clear line of continuity between early regional documentation (Budva Statutes, Ljubić 1882) and modern genetic studies (Calò et al. 2008; Maraš et al. 2019; Tello et al. 2020, La Rioja Institute).  
The purpose is not to replace existing content in the "Origin and history" section, but to complement it by incorporating verified archival, regional, and molecular evidence in line with WP:NPOV and WP:V.
Summary and context:
The table below outlines a continuous line of verifiable research — from medieval documentary sources to modern molecular studies — all converging on the same conclusion: that Kratošija, the Montenegrin synonym of Zinfandel/Tribidrag, has been cultivated in Montenegro since antiquity and later spread northward along the Adriatic coast.
Importantly, these findings were reached independently by several research teams from Montenegro, Serbia, Croatia, Italy, and Spain, which reinforces their neutrality and verifiability.
Acknowledging this continuity in the Zinfandel article would not replace existing references, but complement them — ensuring that the History section accurately reflects the full geographic and scientific scope of the evidence.
For clarity and ease of verification, the detailed sources are listed in the table below.

VitisArchivum (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Editorial note:
It is important to clarify that the studies cited above, In the Yugoslav period works section, together with Bulić, S. (1949) and Ulićević, M. (1959), were classical ampelographic investigations carried out throughout the 20th century. At that time, the origin of Kratošija was not being researched in connection with Zinfandel—the relationship between these varieties had not yet been discovered, nor was it a subject of inquiry. The research was conducted within the established framework of ampelography, based on field observation, morphology, local viticultural practices, and available historical records. DNA markers did not yet exist, and the later international interest in the Zinfandel question was entirely unknown to the researchers of that period.  VitisArchivum (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
For this reason, the conclusions reached by authors such as Ulićević, Bulić, Pejović, Burić, Božinovik, and others were formed independently, without any possibility of bias or agenda. Despite coming from different republics of the former Yugoslavia — Montenegro, Croatia, North Macedonia, Serbia — they all documented the same pattern: that Kratošija was a long-established, autochthonous Montenegrin variety which subsequently spread regionally.
What makes this especially relevant today is that modern DNA research has confirmed these earlier, fully independent ampelographic findings. This note is offered solely as contextual clarification — a chronological link between verified sources from different periods, all of which converge on the same conclusion.
(This is my own contextual addition, not a citation — a chronological bridge between verified sources from different periods, all of which support the same conclusion.) VitisArchivum (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Although I am aware that this contribution is unusually long for a talk page — and although many more details could be added — I believe that this overview was necessary. In accordance with everything presented above, I would now like to propose an amendment to the History section. Immediately after the Tribidrag citation (although it could also be placed above), I propose inserting the following text:

While the sources currently cited in the Zinfandel article represent an important stage in the research history, many predate the broader wave of international DNA studies published after 2000. Since then, several collaborative research projects — including work by the University of La Rioja (Spain), the University of Montenegro, the University of Zagreb, and other European ampelographic centres — have provided additional historical and molecular data relevant to the variety known regionally as Kratošija.
One earlier historical reference appears in the Budva Statutes (1426–1442), published by Šime Ljubić (1882), where the term Cratosia is associated with vineyards and “black wine” in medieval Montenegro. This record, together with its modern reprint (Luketić & Bujuklić, 1988), is part of local documentation surrounding the historical presence of the variety under the Montenegrin name Kratošija.
Throughout the 20th century, several ampelographic works from the former Yugoslavia — including those by Ulićević (1959; 1966), Pejović (1988), Burić (1995), Božinovik (1996), and Maraš (2000; 2004) — described Kratošija’s long-standing cultivation, the presence of multiple biotypes, and its distribution across Montenegrin wine-growing regions. Dalmatian ampelographer S. Bulić (1949) also documented the variety (and its synonyms: Gartošija, Grakošija, Kratkošija) in nine coastal municipalities of Montenegro, noting that it was “rarely found in Dalmatia”. His work has subsequently been cited in modern ampelographic and genetic literature, including Maraš et al. and the tertiary source Terroirs du Monde Education.
These regional studies — while morphological in nature and predating genetic tools — form a continuous body of literature that later DNA analyses helped contextualise. Modern molecular studies (e.g., Calò et al. 2008; Crespan et al. 2014; Tello et al. 2020) demonstrated the genetic equivalence of Kratošija = Tribidrag = Zinfandel, allowing earlier regional historical records to be re-evaluated within a broader genetic framework.
This broader perspective, now reflected across both historical and contemporary scientific sources, does not contradict the material already presented in the article; rather, it complements it by showing how regional historical documentation and modern DNA studies together contribute to a fuller understanding of the variety’s complex history. Incorporating this material in an appropriate section (e.g., “History” or “Origin and historical documentation”) would help ensure that the article reflects the complete scope of verifiable scholarship. VitisArchivum (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

In addition to the Dalmatian records of Tribidrag, several regional and international research initiatives have pointed to the long-documented presence of the same genetic variety under the name Kratošija in Montenegro. The variety is referenced in the medieval *Statuta civitatis Buduae* (1426–1442), published in the Latin edition of Šime Ljubić (1882) and reproduced in the modern Montenegrin critical edition by Luketić & Bujuklić (1988), where vineyards of “vigne de Cratosia” are explicitly mentioned. This constitutes an independent archival record predating the modern debate surrounding Zinfandel’s identity.
Moreover, a broad body of 20th-century Yugoslav ampelographic literature — spanning authors from Montenegro, Croatia, Serbia, and North Macedonia — consistently described Kratošija as an autochthonous Montenegrin variety and suggested that it likely spread from Montenegro into neighbouring regions such as Dalmatia and Macedonia.These earlier conclusions have since been supported by modern genetic surveys (Calò et al. 2008; Crespan et al. 2014; Maraš 2019; Tello et al. 2020), which report that Montenegro preserves the most heterogeneous and polymorphic populations of this grape, a pattern considered consistent with long-term local cultivation and subsequent outward dissemination. VitisArchivum (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Ping: Jonesey95, Liz, Agne27, Bethling — any thoughts are welcome, if you have a moment.

DalidaEditor – Just to clarify, Budva was never part of Venetian Dalmatia, but belonged to the Venetian Republic (Repubblica di Venezia) as one of several coastal communes on the territory of present-day Montenegro — together with Kotor, Bar, Ulcinj, and Perast.
The Statuta civitatis Buduae originated during the period of Zeta’s rulers from the Balšić and Branković dynasties, reflecting the legal environment established under Emperor Dušan.
When the Venetian authorities took control in the early 15th century, the statute was translated and revised, preserving many of its original clauses while adding new administrative provisions consistent with Venetian law.
Just to add a brief clarification on dating: the year 1700 refers only to the date of the surviving Venetian copy; the statute text itself contains internal references to earlier dates, which Šime Ljubić also reproduces in his 1882 edition, placing it in the 1426–1442 period rather than in 1700.
This clarification is factual and based on verifiable historical sources (per WP:V and WP:NPOV).
Note on process (WP:BRD / WP:CONSENSUS)
This is the second factual correction (first regarding the Statuta Buduae date, and now the Venetian Dalmatia attribution).
To avoid any risk of edit warring, and to maintain verifiability and neutrality (per WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS), I suggest that all substantial future edits, be proposed here, on the Talk page first, so we can reach agreement before updating the article.
I’m assuming good faith and I’m open to any additional reliable sources or discussion.
I would also welcome input from other editors, so that we can reach a stable and broadly supported wording.
VitisArchivum (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

For transparency: I have now added the previously proposed History paragraph (Variant B) to the article, as outlined earlier on this Talk page. Since no objections were raised, I proceeded under consensus by silence (WP:CONSENSUS).
The updated History section can be seen in the current revision of the article here:
link.
I accidentally omitted the edit summary when publishing; the later small edit only removed the remaining earlier sentence so that the new paragraph fully replaces it.
VitisArchivum (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

It's been reverted. I have missed the talk page discussion, otherwise I would have objected earlier to including AI-generated content such as you proposed, and then added. Not only that, but you have compounded the problem by using an AI to substitute for your own personal communication.
It's fine to use an AI to help you find sources, but Wikipedia isn't interested in including AI-generated content. There are alternative wikis for that, such as Grokipedia. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi VitisArchivum,
I have noticed you mentioned me above on talkpage so I would like to clarify few things:

your recent edits for Zinfandel [3] are WP:TE.
you recently created Kratošija article, citing Serbian Wikipedia as your primary source [4]. I redirected that article per WP:POVFORK. After you reported it as an incident [5], the redirect was approved.
you uploaded an image of a text snippet on commons as “File:Excerpt from the Medieval Statute of Budva, page 144.png”[6] with false informations in description (name itself, autor being anonymous, date being 1442) and providing a source link to PDF on montenegrina.net. The PDF is of a 1988 book that is a Serbian language translate of a primary source multi-volume book Monumenta Slavorum. The 1988 book literally rips out from Monumenta solely the part with Budva statute, scan-pasting the pages, and adds an introduction with point of view centered on medieval Serbian kings.
I redid the file page adding real book source, authors, year and changed misleading name into “File:Excerpt from 1882–3 transcript of Statuto di Budua from 1700.png”[7]. The source I provided is University of Innsbruck digital librairy containing full file of this Monumenta Slavorum volume
The earliest, digitally alvailable, mention of Kratošija vine is as “Cratosia” in transcript of statue of Budva, coming from the above mentioned and linked Monumenta Slavorum volume, authored by JAZU and Šime Ljubić and issued in Zagreb in 1882-3.
As stated in the foreword of Monumenta, the part with Budva statute is transcribed from a manuscript from 1700 (kept in Library of Saint Mark in Venice, under signature: MSS. Ital. cl. II. n. 37.) since it was the oldest known. That makes the manuscript oldest known mention of Cratosia, but it’s not digitally alvailable.
The year 1442, that you misleadingly indicate, is when Budva fell under Venetian rule, recieved it’s privileges and it’s first potestate was installed, which is documented in statute and adjointing documents, all transcribed in Monumenta. This information, as well as that the manuscript from 1700 is basis for Monumenta, was acknowledged in Serbian translation in it’s own words.
The first genetic research that proposes Montenegro, the only country where name Kratošija is used, as the best candidate country for the origin and spreading centre of Zinfandel is this [8]. It is from 2013-14.
With all my respect but it seems to me that you are trying to build up a nonexistent story. Dalida Editor  please ping or message me 21:42, 17 November 2025 (UTC)