Talk:Absinthe/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →

Archived for Absinthe talk page from March to August 2007.


Contents

Singapore and Norway

Raffles The Plaza Hotel in Singapore is currently running an absinthe promotion, so it seems rather unlikely to be illegal here. I've asked Singapore Customs for a clarification. Jpatokal 06:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I believe Singapore has re-legalised absinthe in the last few months: see this blog with the same brand. I'm checking other sources too.

I think Norway can be excluded from the list too. If absinthe under 60% is ok, then absinthe is legal. It is high strength spirits that are illegal (high strength vodka etc.). So it's only the USA and some Muslim countries left. Alanmoss 07:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Mail from Tuang Hong TAN, Deputy Head of the Import Control Branch, Food Control Division, Agri-Food & Veterinary Authority (AVA) of Singapore: AVA allows consumers/travellers to bring in alcoholic beverages including absinthe for personal consumption so long as the products do not contain meat, and the items' total value is not more than S$100 and not exceeding 5 kg. Jpatokal 09:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

But that doesn't say that companies can bring in hundreds of cases to sell in the local Singapore market, does it, so maybe it is only personal imports .. Could you get Mr. Tan to comment on that? Alanmoss 10:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There's an Absinthe Bar [1] in Sg that sells a couple of bottles of the stuff every night, so no, there's nothing prohibiting commercial imports. Jpatokal 14:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Separate Czech Page?

Does any think that the section on Czech/Bohemian Absinth can be made into a separate page that is linked to from that section? As the section stands now, I don’t think so, but if on a separate page we could start to include some info on the Czech producers (Hill’s being the most famous). I don’t know if it should, but I just thought I might bring it up in case anyone else was feeling the same way. 64.16.40.18 06:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

We had the debate before. Personally I would vote for separate pages, Would be even better if the other page could be called Wormwood Bitters. Alanmoss 06:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
If you can add more information, it could see a separate page that links from a section in absinthe would be good, showing it as a different product while keeping the relevant parts in the absinthe article as well. -- Ari 07:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
This is assuming that all Czech absinthe is not, in fact, proper absinthe. I can see this becoming a problem if other Czech producers start making more authentic products (as is already becoming the case). Why not leave the Czech section on this page to talk about the modern revival, not authentic 90's beginings, and modern authentic brands? A new page can be created to expand information about the non-authentic stuff, but is there any reason why new, authentic Czech absinth(e) should be excluded from here? I recently saw some new evidence on some page (I will dig through my history to try to find the page) that there was not only absinthe being sold in Bohemia around 1900's, but at least a few local producers. It is not likely that more evidence could emerge as Czech archives are poured through as much as Western ones have been? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.16.25.69 (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
Some people would love to see that "new evidence." Many people have been looking for it for some time but it seems more likely that you find irrefutable evidence of pigs flying first. Hills have been asked for the evidence but cannot provide it according to a contact on one of the forums. Alanmoss 07:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
That's basically what I was suggesting, keeping some information on this page including that some czech products are actual absinthe and move product details to a separate page when enough information exists to warrant one. There is evidence absinthe made it to the czech republic and was drank there. There could have been local producers but I haven't seen evidence for that. The specific claim that Hills (and many other czech brands) is how the Czech's produced "absinthe" in the 1920s and that it was given as war rations to troops setting off their own absinth crave etc. is what is completely lacking in evidence. The reality seems to be someone asked Randomil Hills to produce absinthe, he threw some stuff together with a poor understanding of absinthe and made up a story to make it appear authentic. -- Ari 12:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I am still trying to find the page. My firewall deletes my history periodically, so it wasn't there. I specifically remember seeing photos of the inside of an old distillery with some equipement, advertisments for the distillery selling it's absinthe, something else, and a diary page from some famous Czech from around 1900. I guess the problem is that I was relying on the site for the translation of the text, but I would think that can be independantly verified. Stand by I will do my best to find it. For what it is worth, it seemed to be a new site, as I couldn't find any archives of it in the web archives.74.92.226.109 03:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The site in question is being discussed on Fee Verte http://www.feeverte.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=3967&st=0
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.234.240.98 (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
I've read a couple threads dealing with that site and talked to the owner, it's quite interesting. I'm not quite convinced yet without some more information and details but it does seem that absinthe made it's way to the czech republic and may have even been produced there (there are still questions whether it was produced or rebottled) and that it was absinthe and not the "Bohemian absinth" that some companies claim. -- Ari 06:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Why not add some of the information provided there, then remove it if it can be refuted? 24.16.25.69 19:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
That's not really how Wikipedia works. Information is removed unless it can be proven, not unless it can't be refuted. Big difference there. Kafziel Talk 19:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
There is proof on that page, however. Only the things that are backed up by proof should be put here, of course.24.16.25.69 20:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It hasn't really been verified as proof of anything yet. All of it is still too ambiguous. Peridotmetal 01:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
By whom should/could it be verified, and what would the verifier be looking for? Do you mean just for a third party Czech person to translate for you the Czech text? That should be very easy to arrange, no? It seems pretty un-ambiguous on the website. There is a lot of proof presented there. There are at least a few changes that can be made:

"Absinthe (with anise) has been consumed in Czech lands (then part of Austria-Hungary) since at least 1888, notably by Czech artists, some of whom had an affinity for France, frequenting Prague's Cafe Slavia.[7] Its wider appeal is uncertain, though it was sold in many shops in and around Prague."

These edits are from the Otto Dictionary book information. There could also be something like:

"There is evidence that at least one local liquor distillery, in Bohemia, was purporting to make absinthe at the turn of the 20th century."

Perhaps it would be best to change the title of the Czech section to "Czech, or Bohemian, style Absinthe". Then move the parts I mentioned into the history section since they have nothing to do with this type of absinthe.24.16.25.69 15:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestions.  :While the evidence is compelling some more details would be nice, although it does match what might be expected. - Ari 16:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I made the changes. Should the source be cited, and if so, how?24.16.25.69 23:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Completed citation24.16.25.69 19:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The re-birth of Czech absinth is quoted here http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/11/07/073218.php as coming from one bottle in one pub in Bohemia in 1990. The same pub as quoted on this user page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chmee2

Worth making this official? This could replace footnote 8, since it comes directly from the horse's mouth (so to speak). Alanmoss 13:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we should create separate pages for allot of these sections and distill the content down to one or two paragraphs. This article still needs a bit of help in the readability category. If no one objects I will work on the separate Czech section. -nightcafe1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.44.253.88 (talk) 11:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

USB Absinthe Spoon

It seems a new invention/fad has become de riguer among enthusiasts, how about including a reference to it? - Danzarrella

Might go well on either the Absinthiana page or the Absinthe in popular culture page. -- Ari 18:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
as an external link or an addition to the article itself? - Danzarrella

Mr. USB Spoon Man: I don't think the spoon deserves to be on any of the absinthe pages until we know it exists. I'm a vendor who might buy several hundred spoons but you haven't replied to an email I sent you several weeks ago via your home page, and I don't know anyone who has yet seen a spoon. Alanmoss 10:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)=

POV

Too much of this article reads like a book with decidedly POV sentences claiming one thing over another in an innapropriate tone. Blueaster 07:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Blueaster says about himself "I'm a writer. I like polished prose that is clean, sharp, succint and efficient." And then comes up with a delightful new way of spelling "inappropriate." That aside, Blueaster, and ignoring the fact that the Wikipedia community thinks this article is good (it's one of a handful of food and drink articles awarded "featured article status"), could you give 2/3 POV examples from the article? Alanmoss 10:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

So, basically you're saying, "since other people at one point came together and called this article good, there's nothing wrong with it". Perfectly logical statement. Anyways, I just made that comment as a sort of an earmark to this page, I'll get right to work now. Blueaster 02:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I think he might have been asking what you think is POV and/or an inappropriate tone. Perhaps you could explain that? -- Ari 02:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"and the supposed ill effects of the drink were blamed on that substance in 19th century studies."

I don't know what exactly this sentence is trying to say- Did they find thujone in the 19th century? Did they do studies on absinthe, and because of thujone present, label it dangerous? Since it's amiguous and detracting from the paragraph, I'm removing it. Blueaster 02:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

So instead of removing sections of the article you could always clarify or ask for things to be clarified.
"Undistilled wormwood essential oil contains a substance called thujone, which is a convulsant and can cause renal failure in extremely high doses. 19th century studies blamed the ill effects of absinthe on thujone. Many of these studies were flawed..."
Is accurate.
On the other hand, the newly added " probably due to the fact that less scrupulously manufactured absinthe was actually dangerous. " is questionable. While some claims of absinthism were no doubt do to bad products it would be incorrect to say it was the only thing that led absinthe to be blamed. What was your reasoning for removing the sentence explaining how this study was further missused? -- Ari 02:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


All I have done to that sentence was change the wording from a very personal, "well, duh" tone to a more neutral one. My final wording does not attribute the villification of absinthe to bad product any more than the original wording did.
And the sentence I removed,

These studies were further taken advantage of as the French word for wormwood is 'absinthe', and it was incorrectly stated that absinthe, the drink, had caused these problems.

, was overly vague and unwieldly. I mean, who exactly took advantage of this difference in languages and somehow used it to further their negative claims about absinthe? Newspapers, governments? Anybody? Blueaster 03:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
btw, I hope you won't think that I am editing the article in any sort of spite for absinthe. As I've said before (and as you will hopefully see from the edits that you have been so closely watching), there were a few POV statements in the article that needed fixing, which, hopefully, I have fixed. (And hopefully, you'll see what I meant by saying that I'm a writer who edits in the name of polished prose) Blueaster 03:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I like some changes, but not others. In some cases as mentioned it's best to ask for clarity than to scrap sentences. For example the removed sentence about the confusion over "absinthe" could be clarified that prohibitionist groups used those studies about "absinthe" in anti-absinthe literature.
"probably due to the fact that some of the less scrupulously manufactured absinthe was actually dangerous." This is still not accurate. The problem is "probably due to". Adulterated products are only one cause of the belief that absinthe caused absinthism. So while the original sentence probably needed clarification, this is not it. -- Ari 03:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


fine then. I've reworded it (yet again) so that it's absolutely clear that villification and distortion were present. And now we're left with a positively ugly sentence. Blueaster 04:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

i would just like to tell you that some of the information about absinthe in France is false. The first absinthe to be sold after the interdiction is "Versinthe" (made by La Liquoristerie de Provence) in 1999 and not "La fée Absinthe" in 2000 as it is written in the text. You can check the information on the french version of Wikipedia or on the website www.versinthe.net 81.233.2.110 12:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see any independent contemporaneous reports on this. As late as 2001, the Fee Verte discussions on French (?) Versinthe (http://www.feeverte.net/archive/messages/1902/3197.html) showed doubts whether this was real absinthe because it contains/contained sugar. As far as I know from my two years at La Fée, no-one ever challenged the veracity of Marie-Claude Delahaye stating that La Fée was "The first traditional absinthe to be commercially produced in France since the ban of 1915." If the Versinthe claim can be proved to be true, quite a few pages on WP and elsewhere will need to be changed! Alanmoss 05:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Legal Definition?

The current article says in the 'Regulations' section "[c]urrently, most countries do not have a legal definition of absinthe." I was under the impression that no countries had a legal definition, has this changed?

Switzerland does: absinthe must be distilled; it cannot contain artificial colourings. Alanmoss 13:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Is that just for one being made in Switzerland or ones sold too? Scaper8 00:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've checked with Switzerland. It's both. Alanmoss 12:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll reword the Swiss section to indicate that.Scaper8 00:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

buy it?

So where can you buy it? Online. The real deal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 158.36.174.172 (talk) 09:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

The second and third external links in the absinthe article (at the bottom) take you to Fee Verte and the Wormwood Society. Both have list of recommended vendors. Alanmoss 10:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde quote

This quote from Oscar Wilde about absinthe might make a good addition to the article:

The first stage is like ordinary drinking, the second when you begin to see monstrous and cruel things, but if you can persevere you will enter in upon the third stage where you see things that you want to see, wonderful curious things.

Λυδαcιτγ‽ 03:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Although it is a good quote, it has no special importance to absinthe. There are literally hundreds of good absinthe quotes; they just can't all go here. My personal favorite (also by Wilde):

After the first glass you see things as you wish they were. After the second, you see things as they are not. Finally you see things as they really are, and that is the most horrible thing in the world.

Scaper8 02:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Lucid

Lucid does appear to be an absinthe (distilled, containing Grand wormwood and anise) that uses a thujone-free strain of grand wormwood (a 2005 study possibly sourced here or on thujone describes evidence of such strains). However I think there is too little information out to add it into the article especially since the article is not a place for speculation. Once information about if/when/how it's approved as well as details about the product emerge then it should be included. Considering I have yet to hear of a single brand of absinthe that produces "secondary effects" in everyone that drinks it in uncontrolled environments the existence (or non existence) of these effects does not validate something as absinthe (or not absinthe) and certainly not based on the subjective experience of one writer. -- Ari 21:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that until we have more information on this and have had a chance to try it, having any mention beyond, at most, small reference in US regulations section next to Absente is premature.
A note Kafziel - I do agree that the additions may well have been spam, but this does appear, at least at the moment, to be a legitimate absinthe, just one that is (or rather tests) thujone-free. I'm not saying anything in regards to re revert, just putting this here for future reference. Scaper8 21:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Here's a question: the US law, near as I can tell, calls for "thujone-free" wormwood use only, yeah? Ok, well does anyone have a definition for that? I ask because when we think of N/A beer, that still contains alcohol. So, is the USDA's definition of 'thujone free" = NO thujone, or just below an respectable level(eg, EU standards)? I've checked out their website, with little success. According to Breaux and co., their formula is 'authentic' and therefore contains very little thujone. That could imply the they've used normal wormwood, the the processing really does remove the thujone, or that it's been removed ahead of time. Very unclear in all published info. Also, I did look, albeit briefly, for any changes in US law, and haven't seen anything.--Jonashart 14:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, further research turned up this from http://www.feeverte.net/:
QUOTE(dr_ordinaire @ Jun 2 2007, 06:36 AM) *
OK, this is what Oxy thinks:
"13. What limits on thujone does the U.S. set?
Absinthe was made illegal in the U.S. in 1912, with the enactment of a pure food and drug regulation to address it. Today, Federal law stipulates that plants which contain thujone may only be used to make liquor if the finished product is free of thujone (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 1 Chapter 1). Because the official method used to assay thujone in such products has a minimum detection limit of 1 mg/kg, a product is for all practical purposes "thujone-free" if it contains less than 1 mg/kg of thujone. Absinthe doesn't contain much thujone, but it does contain more than that, so the production of absinthe in the U.S. is effectively prohibited. Absinthe is one of the few items specifically listed by the U.S. Customs Service as not permissible to bring into the country. To make a long story short, it's illegal to make or sell absinthe in the U.S. and you're not supposed to import it there, which for all intents and purposes excludes absinthe as a legal product."
1. Absinthes with less than (approximately) 10mg/l thujone are now potentially legal in the US.
2. Two others (apart from Lucid) have already been approved, and dozens will follow in due course.
3. There's no reason at all to assume that Lucid has signifcantly less than 10mg/l, and neither Ted nor the manufacturers have made any claims to this effect.
4. Effectively, the US regulations are being brought in line with the EU standards. This has been done by administrative fiat (based - to simplify - on an expanded definition of "margin of error" when it comes to thujone testing), not legislation, but the effect will be the same.
5. I'd expect something similar to happen with the 35mg/l "bitters" category at some stage in the future.
Veridian have spent a very large amount of money opening a gate through which anyone can now enter. Whether this was a shrewd business strategy, only time will tell."

--Jonashart 14:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If the US used the same testing method as the EU then no thujone would mean virtually no thujone, but they use a much older method. From what I understand the method was challenged and the margin of error set at 10ppm (roughly the EU 10 mg/l standard for non 'bitters'). However the government has yet to release any updates to the regulation/method and those that announced the change are so far unwilling to give anymore details. At 10ppm there is little need to make too many adjustments as plenty of authentic absinthes (including pre-ban) have tested under that number. -- Ari 14:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Ari, great...was hoping to hear from you. Yeah, reading up on the forum @ the FeeVerte.net, that seems to be the case. Only in this this country could we legally produce something like "Girls Gone Wild", but freak about about thujone content. Oh well, thats a different discussion, isn't it? Anywho, thanks.--Jonashart 14:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the NY Post article, the Lucid folks have been lobbying the gov't for over a year to get their product ok'd. So, still not clear if that means they've changed the law, or just more clearly defined it.--Jonashart 14:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

FWIW (likely, not much): Just spoke to the proprietor of one of the shops in NYC that currently has a supply of Lucid. He also says that its a "lower-content thujone" (he said "hallucinogen"...I let it go) absinthe being used. Perhaps this supports Ari's findings above? It was a 30 second conversation, so no telling how much the guy really knows. I will be grabbing a bottle in about 10 days while there.--Jonashart 20:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


LUCID TESTED: By me, right now. No bitterness. Good louche. A la Pastis. Bottle says its grand wormwood. VERY drinkable.--Jonashart 03:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to try it, but I'm sure it's very drikable.  :-). I've been wanting to add a bit more about lucid, products to come and the adjusted regulations however I still haven't found an official source for regulation changes. I think it may be time to harass the gov again. -- Ari 21:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Ari, good luck with that! I picked up my bottle in NYC, and am now enjoying it in Virginia...doubt I'll be seeing it here any time soon. The question I have is now this: if Breaux has indeed kept his brew 'authentic', how come this new brand is literally less than 1/2 the cost of his original European versions found at his website? You'd think the import cost alone would drive up the price. As is $60/bottle is pretty steep...but his Euro versions are priced at ~$120-$150. Odd, no? --Jonashart 03:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC) (added later)
So, not sure if they updated their site or what, buuuuut; Lucid is stating that it's the real deal and that the real deal meets US and EU standards = no real amounts of thujone. Either way, I like it...--Jonashart 03:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
As stated above, 10ppm or less thujone is considered "thujone-free," and this falls in line with a large amount of the absinthe sold today and before the ban in Europe. So no, Lucid doesn't have a lot of thujone but that's true of most authentic absinthe. There definitely is A.a. in it; the flavour is distinct. As for the difference in price, that has a lot to do with ingredient quality. The herbs used in Lucid are inferior (in my opinion, far inferior) to and cheaper than those used in the Jade products. I'd also assume that the fact that it's produced on a larger scale than Jade keeps the cost of production per bottle lower, but I don't know this for sure. Trust me, if you compare Lucid and any Jade you'll understand why Lucid's way cheaper. Peridotmetal 22:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Happy to taste-test...send my way! If you read the press releases on the Lucid site, some of this is explained, but not nearly enough to make complete sense of what's happening. I think they could be a bit more transparent w/o giving away all their secrets. After all, 2 seconds of internet research would reveal just how many people are interested, try to make their own, and/or believe they have some idea of how it's done. There's lots of hearsay in all this, and Breaux just happens to be the first guy to make it out into the commercial world, American anyway. He still has his doubters...--Jonashart 14:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Spanish Wikipedia Article

I know this is the English article's talk page, but I know there are knowledgeable people here. I was wondering if there were any native Spanish speakers here who wouldn't mind taking a look at the absenta article and discussion. I have changed the image in the past (if you visit the link you'll understand why) only to have it reverted quickly. I am out of practice in my Spanish speaking and writing to make modifications and write captions and be completely certain that the grammar is acceptable. Thestandarddeviant 13:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There's also this gem:

Actualmente existen diversas variedades que para acentuar su sabor utilizan menta, hierbabuena e incluso cannabis. No obstante conviene recordar que muchas de las hierbas empleadas en la elaboración pueden ser venenosas en grandes concentraciones. Es por esta razón por la que se aconseja en el uso de esta bebida no se beba sola.

Unfortunately my spanish is much worse that yours. The top image is quite out of place (a dropper bottle gimmick of a specific brand from france doesn't seem to fit). The 'gem' is accurate in the sense that gimmick products do exist, of course if any of these brands lack a main anise flavor they aren't absinthe and belong somewhere else. -- Ari 21:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I apologise; it was the second part I meant to draw more attention to. It says it is not advised to drink absinthe on one's own because many of the herbs employed in the production are poisonous in large concentrations. Thestandarddeviant 23:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
What the sentence actually says is that you shouldn't drink absinth without mixing it [with water, other sort of drinks, etc..].80.28.202.37 09:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hallucinations?

Both this page and the page on thujone express the forceful opinion that absinthe is believed to cause hallucinations, then repudiates that supposed popular myth. I had never heard absinthe was hallucinatory, and a cursory internet web search for the words absinthe and hallucinations proves that that is not widely thought. It is mind-altering, in a different way than spirits. These articles suggest that absinthe is just the same as ouzo. It would be more informative to state that thujone IS a drug. Kapuchinski 03:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully the reason for that search is because minds have been changed. The idea that absinthe and/or wormwood is a hallucinogen was common (do a search on absinthe,hallucinogen and you can see some of those claims). It can still be found on some vendor sites, drug sites, and general misconception about the drink. Thujone is a "drug" as much as Anethole is a "drug" and it's not a very effective recreational one, so why should it be stated? -- Ari 03:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Roman Wormwood

The absinthe page claimes that Artemisia pontica is Roman Wormwood, but the Roman Wormwood disambiguation page indicates the following two species Ambrosia artemisiifolia and Corydalis sempervirens Autkm 03:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It should be "Artemisia pontica" which is often called either Petite wormwood or Roman wormwood. Although I'm not sure if the term "roman wormwood" is used for other species as well, sometimes the same common name gets used for different species or genus of plants. -- Ari 16:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Proof

Although the article states absinthe is a 'high proof spirit,' it does not state the exact number. Is this because it has a variable proof? Or did someone just leave it out on accident? --//Blake D. Hawkins 16:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It's mentioned later in the article. Pre-ban absinthe varied from 45% to 74% and modern from 45% to 89%. Although when prepared most brands end up around the same percentage. -- Ari 16:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

The absinthe article was down for a minute or two; I was removing some abusive edit summaries from the page history, and of course Wikipedia would choose that moment to lock the damned servers before I could restore the page. But it's back up now, sans offensive edits, with my apologies. Kafziel Talk 20:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Bohemian style re-added

I have re-added the edited/adjusted bohemian style section as there were apparently no complaints to it from OTRS in the 3 weeks I was gone. It's not finished (see notes at Playground scratch page ) however I thought there was no reason it couldn't be edited on the main absinthe page. -- Ari 14:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that the Hills link which is supposed to give a reference to Hill's existence since the 1920's now talks about Hill's becoming popular during the second world war, but has no claim to a prior history. Are Hill's admitting that 1920 is incorrect?? Alanmoss 16:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed

I've removed the following.

I beleive the ban on absinthe has been recently lifted according to the new york post http://www.nypost.com/seven/06172007/entertainment/food/green_scene__food_andrea_strong.htm

What we want to know is whether it is or isn't banned not what X believes. Jɪmp 15:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

yes, but....

yes, but what is the darned stuff made of? Yes, we know it's flavored with wormwood, etc., but nowhere does it simply say what sort of alcohol is used. Is it distilled from grain? From grapes? From potatoes? As sometimes happenes with Wiki, a bit more basic information and a simple description of the thing is what is sometimes hardest to find. NaySay 19:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll add to it to clarify. A specific spirit isn't mentioned because a specific spirit was never used, the herbs are soaked in a high-proof alcohol and then distilled. Some companies like Pernod fils used a high proof grape spirit (like Marc) because there was a belief grape spirits were healthier than neutral/grain spirits. -- Ari 20:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

External Links

There's a new one: Absinthe Fever. I don't think that this has any more information and there seems to be less of a case for this than there is for the Absinthe Buyers Guide(or my blog for that matter!). Can anyone see a reason to keep it? Alanmoss 13:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It's an interesting site but I agree, not external links material yet. -- Ari 15:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll give this another 24 hours or so for any other comments; then I'll remove it. Alanmoss 08:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it's worth keeping. I compared it to all of the sites, and it touches on some topics that the others do not (Aphrodisiac, Specific information about some of the poets). Also, it presents the information in a way that is easier to follow than some of the other web sites. Behemoth35 23:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that the information on Aphrodisiac tells us anything new, and there is very little about the poets. If we let this in, then there could be a case for many, many other resources too. I think that this is a long way from the high standards of the links we already have here. Alanmoss 09:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Well it's not really about what we let through in this case but what the wikipedia guidelines are. Information about artists would probably go better on the artists wikipage or on the pop culture page, and that's assuming it has more information than other links. The point of external links is to provide reliable resources that go beyond the article, in a easy to access manner. I like the site idea but I don't think it fits that. -- Ari 16:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
As I previously stated, I think the site is organized in a manner that is much more user friendly than several of the other resources. I know that it's important to keep Wikipedia spam-free, but this site is obviously not spam, so it seems that you are overly policing/bullying it. Behemoth35 00:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
User friendlyness is not something that bumps a site up on the list. Yes the external links does get policed because it has a greater potential for abuse, however we aren't making up guidelines but following existing ones seen hereWP:EL. Because the article is a FA the external links need to be carefully considered to provide additional information beyond the article is a clean and concise manner. -- Ari 04:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Alanmoss - "...tells us anything new..." and "...If we let this in..." Us? We? Who?? Sorry, but have you forgotten what the point of wikipedia was? You seem to think this article is here for your benefit. No, this is wikipedia, and it exists for the benefit of the general public who come here for information. And yes, the site in question does complement the information presented here and it certainly does "go beyond the article" (as Ari put it). Therefore, it is a useful external resource for the visitor to this page and so I think the link should stay. I like that site and think it is concise and well organized, too. Felicia11 12:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you provide examples of where the site goes beyond the article (and other external links) specifically about absinthe? Are these examples supported by source? Is the information always accurate? -- Ari 14:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
But Ari - examples? The whole site is the example you're asking for. It explores absinthe from so many angles! (click the link for an obvious example, if you insist on one). How you can propose it does not go "beyond" the wiki article is beyond me (no pun intended). Have you actually read the site? Or just scanned it? Is the information always accurate, you ask. Which parts are not? Let me know and let's debate this further. Felicia11 17:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes I have read the site (I've actually commented on their article comment/forum section, are you sure you have actually read the site?). Again, I'm not saying the site isn't interesting, just that I don't think it meets wikipedia FA external link criteria. "the whole site" isn't exactly a good way to give examples. If it meets criteria then you should be able to come up with specific examples. The green fairy page for example, it doesn't provide any more information that isn't found on other external links, this page or the L'Absinthe page. It also doesn't support its statements. -- Ari 15:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
"The green fairy page for example, it doesn't provide any more information that isn't found on other external links, this page or the L'Absinthe page." But Ari, it is exactly the other way around! The Green Fairy page provides a lot more information than the L'Absinthe article. The Wiki L'Absinte article gives a few facts about the painting and even hints at the "cross-Channel" tensions of the time. The Green Fairy page on absinthefever.com gives pretty much the same info, but, importantly, it goes further; it looks into (for example) why the painting caused such an outrage. It looks at the wider context. It quotes Corelli to further demonstrate what the real "problem" with L'Absinthe was at the time. Now ask yourself this: you've got a member of the public trying to find out about L'Absinthe, the painting. They come to Wikipedia and get the basic facts. Will they or will they not find AF's Green Fairy page useful? Will that page provide them with additional, useful information on the topic they are interested in (L'Absinthe)? Of course it will, because that page does enhance and complement the Wiki article in the ways I described above! The same is true about this Wiki absinthe article and Absinthe Fever as a whole -- the relationship between L'Absinthe and AF's Green Fairy page mirrors the relationship between this Wiki article and Absinthe Fever. Absinthe Fever complements this Wiki article just like their Green Fairy page complements the L'Absinthe article. Why can't you see this?? Felicia11 13:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
IF they are coming to learn about L'absinthe then they wont be looking at the absinthe page links at all. If you feel the L'absinthe article doesn't contain enough information then you should add that information to the article. The two books sourced in that article contain more information than the 'green fairy' link provided. If you are concerned about people learning from wikipedia perhaps you can help out, pick up a book and enhance the page.
Again, saying "it does" doesn't make it true. Please provide specific examples. Examples where the link goes beyond not only the page but existing external links and provides solid support for its statements.
Please do not add the link again, it has been left for awhile but as an FA links really should be added after it can be shown they are useful not kept as long as the conversation drags on. Frankly I'm tired of people coming to wikipedia who have no interest in actually improving the article but only to in advertising their site. -- Ari 14:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Ari- I have added the link again, not least because I have serious reservations about your editor-like attitude. Please note that you do not own this article, nor are you in charge of its content. This is Wikipedia, and I will say again that it exists for the benefit of the general public. This is not your playground. You and I might have a disagreement about a particular resource, but you have no right whatsoever to dismiss my opinion and act as you see fit.
Secondly, you have yet again failed to address any of the points I raised. Thus far, your response each time was to remove the link in question -- but that is not a valid argument I'm afraid. I have provided, in my opinion (and for your benefit, since you seem not to understand the obvious), a clear example of why the site in question is a useful additional resource. Surely I needn't repeat myself? Your saying that "IF they are coming to learn about L'absinthe then they wont be looking at the absinthe page" only validates what I suspected -- that you just don't see what I see. I have only used that analogy to demonstrate a broader issue. Yet you fail to comprehend that -- or do you choose to fail to comprehend?
I did some Googling earlier today and what I found didn't exactly fill me with much comfort I'm afraid. I sense motives (of the commercial kind), and such motives and Wikipedia are not exactly compatible. I see no reason to elaborate further (in public, anyway) so I'll leave it at that. As for your suggestion that I am in some way involved in "advertising their site", please support this statement (as you are so fond of saying) or refrain from making unfounded accusations. I never intended to be this involved, but now that I am, you'll have to listen to my point of view as well. And yes, I might just contribute to the Wiki content -- thanks for the suggestion. Felicia11 18:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
No where have I said I'm in charge, I have pointed you to the guidelines, and previous discussions, please re-read them if you do not understand them. Maybe I missed the points you raised, please show me where you provided evidence the site contains new and accurate information that is not address in the current external links or sources? As mentioned virtually everything in the "green fairy" article can be found on either one of the sites or in the books sourced. If there is a specific quote you like, perhaps it can be added to the correct article with context (the quote is also in at least one of the two sourced books at the L'absinthe article. I would love to hear your theories of how I somehow make money on this, please e-mail them to me (you can find an e-mail me option at my user page) beyond that any claimed or actual motives doesn't matter, we are dealing with the argument not the person. As I don't have the time to constantly ask for evidence and to play revert war, I will ask an admin to get involved. And yes I should have said "a site" not "their site" -- Ari 01:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Ari. I see very little that goes beyond the article and the main external links. Compare that with my blog which has in-depth interviews with the people running the two major absinthe forums, details of the 104 absinthe cocktails featured in the 1930 Savoy Cocktail Guide and detailed analysis of many of the issues facing absinthe today. And I am NOT recommending my blog gets a link here because it still has some way to go to catch up with Fee Verte and the Wormwood Society. Alanmoss 17:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Alanmoss- Actually, that blog of yours is informative and quite frankly I think it should be included as well. Let's face it, this is Web 2.0 and blogs is where it's at, and this one does stand out. Again, it complements the information provided by the Wiki article. I think it's important to explore a topic from different angles and provide people with different points of view. I mean, give them the essential facts on Wikipedia, and if they want more, point them in the direction of a good variety of resources. So that's why I'll add the blog as well. I think it is useful. Felicia11 19:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I'm Jamie from absinthefever.com. I am flattered by the heated discussion that the inclusion of absinthefever on Wikipedia has brought about! I just want to let you all know that although I do not care about the link (I don't see many click-throughs in the logs anyway, maybe a couple a day), we do get emails from people every day saying how much they appreciate the site, so I think we must have done something right. About a week ago a teacher wrote to say that she found this Wikipedia page and absinthefever.com the two most useful online resources for a class project. However, as I am the site owner, anything I say will be deemed biased so I'm not going to get involved. Ari, we spoke earlier this year, remember? How are you doing? JamieAF 16:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I have replaced the "Absinthe Arrives in New York, and We Start Drinking It Immediately" reference with this one. The nymag.com article (if indeed its length warrants the term "article") looks like an advertorial and provides no information other then that a New York dealer sold twelve bottles in a day. In contrast, the wired.com piece is much more informative and balanced. Felicia11 19:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)