Talk:Absolut Vodka

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Absolut Vodka article.
Article policies
WikiProject Sweden The article on Absolut Vodka is supported by WikiProject Sweden, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Absolut Citron

I notice that there is a working link for Absolut Citron in the list of flavors- but it links back to this page. On a similar note... does it really make sense to request articles for the various flavors of Absolut? Wouldn't they all be condemned to stub-dom? Kaitwospirit 01:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

The only listed source which is not an Absolut-owned corporate webpage only supports the section on name origins. This article reads at times like an ad - and not a brilliant one at that.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.161.96.161 (talk • contribs).

I concur. I replaced the (CITATION?) messages with the {{Fact}} template and added a cleanup tag to the article. Aep 03:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Absolut PEPPAR

Apparently, the person who added the note about Absolut PEPPAR has never tasted the stuff. It is most certainly not chili pepper-flavored, but black pepper-flavored. It's my favorite of the lot.

[edit] Dead Link

In the marketing section it links to AbsolutCollectors.com which apparently isn't up anymore. Also: AbsolutCollectors.com is listed in the external links...should i remove this, does anyone know what is going on with this website?

GMoonit 23:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 100 Proof

I distinctly remember 100 proof Absolut in 1996 or earlier. Came in a bottle with red lettering instead of blue. So why is it down as being introduced in 2007? Angryscientist 06:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed there is the red labeled 100% proof and the black & silver labeled 100 % proof. For the differences i dunno.
I agree. I have been drinking 100-proof Absolut since 2005.
Yes, it certainly was not launched in '07. There are online reviews of this vodka out there dating back much further. [1]. I removed the reference, and also made a minor change to the name of this variety. It is not officially called Absolute 100. It is simply called Absolute Vodka. The differentiation is in the label itself--red coloring and the labeled notation of 100 proof liquor. Stivo 01:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The new bottle is a re-launch of the product, it is to attract a vodka to the male demographic. and is spelt as with all products "ABSOLUT" not 'absolute' as quoted above. The new product is called officially ABSOLUT 100.

That explains a lot. I work in a state store in PA and someone asked me what the difference was between the 100-proof Absolut with red lettering and Absolut 100, and the information on the bottles was exactly the same. That's what I was researching. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.186.128 (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Absolut New Orleans

Absolut New Orleans needs to be added to the flavor lineup. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.43.94.13 (talk) 00:20, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi Protect

Could someone protect this page to new users? Apparently some non-notable bloggers have taken offense to their recent ad campaign and have repeatedly vandalized this page (and mentioned my IP address on their page! Hooray!).--147.126.95.167 (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

WHY would you have to "protect" this page? IT seems top me that those that want to "protect this page" have a political agenda and that agenda is NOT the truth. It seems as if to me this page actually is endorsing the "reconquista" movement. If WIKI is going to survive, it needs to be on truth. This was a STUPID thing for ABSOLUT to do with 50% of their market share in the UNITED STATES. It serves a PERFECT business lesson of what not to do i.e., DO NOT ALIENATE YOUR PAYING CUSTOMERS" and then, expect the customers to by hook line and sinker a political agenda cleverly disquised as an "ad". This is about politics, NOT knowledge or documentation. A pox on your "scholarly" activities as a charade of political activism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.187.128 (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As a person from los angeles, I can assure you the HATRED of illegal aliens and GARBAGE like absolute is anything BUT "white nationalists". Most American citizens of ALL colors dispise that filthy toilet called Mexico, strangely enough, so do Mexicans, that's why they move here ILLEGALLY.

Absolute can write LA off it's profit lists...for good. We have started a word of mouth boycott that has caused many bars to STOP carrying it!!! Smoke that up you stupid Swedish pipe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.169.231 (talk • contribs)

Considering the fact that Absolut has issued a statement on their website regarding the matter([2]), and it has been mentioned by the Los Angeles Times ([3]), I think it is a bit more than a few "non-notable" bloggers. I myself am rather incensed at the ad, and will go out of my way to not buy their product in the future. I've added a segment on the issue to the article. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
It was in LA Time's blog, an opinion site, and the other source used was a blog as well. If there are some neutral points of view, like a newspaper article, a news story, etc, I would consider keeping it, but for right now, I'd keep my emotions in check about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.127.11 (talk) 05:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Absolut has issued a response defending the ad on their website ([4]). I think it's time to stop blaming messengers and let it go up. IMSnooping (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Only somewhere like wikipedia could consider Michelle Malkin, perhaps the most popular conservative blogger, who has hosted The O'Reilly Factor on Fox News multiple times to be a 'non-notable blogger'. Just more Absolut proof of Wikipedia's liberal bias. Sniper Fox (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I never called her "non-notable." I will call her extreme, radical, eccentric and other things; but she's certainly notable among her fanbase. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
"notable among her fanbase" as well as the general public. Best selling author. Major blogger. But of course Orangemike's the typical liberal; conservatives are only "notable among their fanbase." I also couldn't help but notice that as soon as the TRUTH began coming out, it was liberal (self described per his userpage) "Hippie" Orangemike that shut down the edits for the article. Why, it cannot be a news story, must be something made up by the "white nationalists" or "white supremicists" (notice how the liberals love to claim they are above name calling, yet immediately reach for it) and Wikipedia in general, and Orangemike in particular, simply cannot have them adding or editing to include the story. So, down the memory hole it goes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.205.94.10 (talk • contribs)

A bit of perspective: Absolut has been in business for some 130 years offering middle brow vodka and vodka based products to the masses. They've offered whimsical advertising of every description for years.

Given their long history, there is no way a single ad campaign (or a single ad in it) gone unnoticed by all but a small contingent of white supremacists and other miscellaneous right wingers looking for their "controversy" du jour could rise to the level of notability that would merit its inclusion in the page. Given that absolut-ly no one cares outside of the Malkin set, a rather fringe political demographic to be sure, I'd have to second the motion to protect the page until the "issue" is forgotten (i.e. next week). The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What exactly are you censors trying to protect Absolut from? The truth is the truth -- and the truth about this ad is no less notable than references on the article to any of their ads. Are you afraid of people knowing the truth? The LA Times has reported on this issue more than once. Absolut has issued two statements -- one defending the ad, one apologizing for it and announcing its withdrawal. Whether you're animated by the ad or not is of no consequence -- it's a notable event in Absolut's history and it belongs on the article.IMSnooping (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
"a small contingent of white supremacists" Gosh. No obvious bias behind your editing. Nope. 67.135.49.254 (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I will agree that the article is a bit chatty in that it includes references to some ad campaigns for which Absolut is not especially noted. This is a weakness of the text to be sure. All the more reason that it should not be compounded with more nonsense like it.

The truth, as you say, is that the Mexico ads are being flogged by people with a fairly clear political agenda and that within a few days no one except a small political fringe of right blog readers will remember this ever happened. Indeed, the entire purpose of edits regarding the Mexico ads is to try to perpetuate and expand the supposed outrage into the mainstream. As such, the edits are fundamentally non-encyclopedic in nature. The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

To put it more simply: The edits including this Mexico ad business amount to political activism. See Wikipedia:SOAP etc. There's also an NPOV issue: If the interest in the subject is restricted to American white nationalists, it seems to me that its inclusion, being an assertion of its notability to a general audience, is just not justifiable within the context of an encyclopedia taking a neutral point of view. The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay - political activism is banned, correct? Well then why on earth is there an entry that discusses the political activism of ABSOLUT and its support of the GLBT community? Anything having to do with nigh-communist left-wing ideology is somehow not political activism? Despite the webpage clearly implying that ABSOLUT's political activism on that issue is correct? You can't have it both ways. If a factual entry on the Reconquista ad can't be there because of "political activism" than neither can an entry on the embrace of GLBT community because that is just as much political activism. User:Cameron Mount —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.94.67.203 (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Right, but the entrance in the political sphere was made not by "white nationalists" (?), but by Absolut. They're the ones who ran the overtly political ad. It's not as if people are making this up about Absolut. They made their own beds and there's no reason that something notable that Absolut did shouldn't find its way onto their article. And you're wrong that the matter is only of interest to a small sliver of people. Go to Absolut's website and read the comments to their statement. Last I looked, there were about 1000 comments, from people who lay claim to any number of political stripes.
I'd feel differently if somebody twisted something Absolut did. But it's a factual report about a factual ad. And a great deal of this particular article relates to Absolut's adverstising (as it the case with many consumer products companies).
In any event, you're blaming the messenger. This addition is entirely in keeping with WP's guidelines.IMSnooping (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Disagree completely, utterly with the rabbit. At Yahoo, as of Mon., Apr 7, 9:36 PM ET, the Absolut reconquista ad was the most emailed news story, having been emailed 6,241 times: "Absolut vodka pulls ad showing California in Mexico / Reuters - Mon Apr 7, 9:36 PM ET / Sent 6,241 times." Most Emailed Story. Not just for The rabbit's name-called groups. Wikpedguy (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the description of a liquor advertisement by a quirky advertising agency as "the... reconquista ad" shows where the POV pushing is. And on a planet of 6 billion people, 6,241 e-mails is barely a rounding error. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Remember Wikireaders: Orangemike shutting down edits about the ad is not "POV". Noting that the ad is directly related to the push by many in the Mexican community to reconquest the southern U.S. somehow is "POV pushing". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.205.94.10 (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If there are some neutral points of view, like a newspaper article, a news story, etc, I would consider keeping it, but for right now, I'd keep my emotions in check about it.

How about these for news paper articles and news stories?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-absolut6apr06,1,4346417.story (no this is not the LAT tblog) http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0729018920080408 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,346964,00.html

Yes this is a real news story and not some blog story as you seem to think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.200.91.129 (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

While it was suggested that this is insignificant considering Absolut's 130 year history, the fact that they have only been in the United States since 1979 truly indicates their lack of political sensitivity for Americans and the issues facing us today. This new campaign of theirs makes it perfectly clear that they were willing to disrespect Americans in order to gain favor with Mexicans. Absolut's willingness to stir up political controversy in the United States in order to sell more vodka in Mexico makes the mention of this campaign politically relevant to the history of Absolut. [User:Phredd 10:01 8 April 2008] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phredd (talk • contribs) 14:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue has now been covered by several international news agencies, including the Associated Press, Reuters, CNN, and Fox News. So keeping it out of the Wikipedia article is in itself a political viewpoint. The story belongs in the article, and a picture of the ad does as well, considering that, despite the ad being intended for the Mexican market, it is now likely the most well know Absolut ad in America. DesScorp (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"The rabbit..." should be banned from this discussion. Rather than discuss the substance of this issue, the rabbit is stereotyping and race-baiting by suggesting that everyone who is for these additions is a "white supremacist" "right winger" "MIchelle Malkin" reader (the latter nonetheless a complement). The rabbit continues to spout that this issue has only been raised by a small political fringe group. Since the rabbit's premise is unsupported bigotry, his arguments are also unsupported and should be ignored. Phredd (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This is "Liberal Intellectual Fascism". It truly boggles the mind. Never thought those 3 words would ever be put together for that meaning.

Einstien —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.187.128 (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


As there seem to be quite a lot of Malkin enthusiasts pushing the issue, perhaps a compromise is in order.

To say the ads sparked "controversy," in my view, is to deliberately obscure the nature and extent of such controversy. As such, I have clarified the origins of the issue (as given in the extant reference) so that it is clear exactly how the controversy arose, who was involved, and more or less what their claims to having taken offense were based in. As long as it does not appear that a large number of people in the mainstream of American political discourse were involved, the section's temporary inclusion is not so egregious. The matter should certainly be revisited after time has passed, however, so a determination can be made as to whether this is something that ought to remain in Wikipedia for the remainder of its existence. The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that a few of the posters need to be disciplined here for not following the wikipedia talk page guidelines. "non-notable bloggers" is a disparaging opinion and unless it is cited with a source should be removed by the anon poser.

"white supremacists and other miscellaneous right wingers" is a perfect example of what not to post by the guidelines, specifically: "No insults: Do not make ad hominem attacks, such as calling someone an idiot or a fascist. Instead, explain what is wrong with an edit and how to fix it." "The rabbit in the suitcase" should be banned from this site for failing to meet the basic guidelines required here and certainly should not be editing an article with such a clear bias.

Finally, Orange Mike needs to be removed from editing this page for obvious bias such as, "Especially since one of the loudest nationalists in this whole silly hissyfit, Malkin, is herself a non-white immigrant. "White" here seems to be shorthand for 'jingoist/chauvinist/anti-Mexican'." Just because you don't care for the justified criticism doesn't mean it is not important to others. There should be no place for such comments here.

Why are you so offended? I was pointing out that it was not fair to call her a "white nationalist" when she's neither white nor a native-born American herself. I was saying that somebody seemed to be using "white" as a slur, and that this was inappropriate. How does that make me the biased one? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As for the article itself, the mention of "Mexican immigration critic Michelle Malkin" has nothing to do with the ad itself and is used to discredit the criticism. I myself never heard of this person and it is irrelevant to the ad. The ad was released not through Malkin but by Absout themselves in Mexico and elsewhere. Please do not distract from the actual issue itself with such meaningless items.

The word "alleged" is not appropriate here, as it is a well-defined movement. One just has to look at Wikipedias OWN Aztlan article to see this or better yet Absolut vodka's own advertising!

Finally, the "its critics were adamant" comment is just silly and divisive. What the heck is something like that doing here?! (Mundunugu (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC))

My edits to the article are factually accurate. Indeed, Malkin is a critic of Mexican immigration and she did begin the campaign against the ad. Her history of criticism and activism on immigration issues informs her decision to make an issue of the ad. If you wish to remove the word "alleged" from the clause about the reconquista movement, please provide a credible source detailing the nature and extent of that movement. I think this would help readers to evaluate the plausibility of the critics' claims.
The phrase "its critics were adamant" is important in understanding the nature of the campaign against Absolut. They explained their position that the ad was purely fun and games, but this did not satisfy their critics in the least. This, again, informs the nature of the controversy. The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I just think you're way out of bounds, rabbit. You're accusing other people of editing in the interest of political activism, while it seems pretty clear that's what you're doing. The difference is that those who think the ad should be mentioned are journaling a notable fact of Absolut's marketing history, while you're trying to whitewash it. It really doesn't matter what Michelle Malkin's political views are. This article isn't about her -- it's about Absolut. And they were the ones who ran the ad, not some blogger you obviously detest.
I think Orange Mike has done a fair job policing this hubbub. It absolutely belongs on the article and it's preposterous that you think it doesn't. What doesn't belong on the article is charged rhetoric of any kind and Orange Mike has correctly seen to it that it doesn't stay.IMSnooping (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I think my edits to the article accurately reflect the facts. It is indeed the case that Michelle Malkin fomented the "controversy" such as it is. It is true that Absolut initially tried to explain that they had no intention of provoking anyone in the US and that the intent of the ad was whimsical (not political as some editors have charged), as is the case with most of their ads. It is a fact that critics of the ad found that explanation insufficient and persisted in demanding apologies and advocating boycott (as they still do, I might add). Any account of the "controversy" should include these facts, as they go to crucial questions of credibility and indeed rationality of those involved.
A neutral account of any controversy must report on all sides of it. The controversy was initiated via blog posts written by Malkin. Her political views absolutely inform the nature of her objections. To fail to report on the (rather radical) right wing views of those on one side of this "controversy" would be to mislead the reader. The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
But (a) this isn't a newspaper, and (b) the article has nothing to do with Michelle Malkin. You're making her the issue, simply because she's among the more notable people criticizing the ad. It's an Absolut article, it's about the vodka, its manufacturer, and its marketing. What you think of a particular ad's critics is immaterial to any of that. There is no "credibility" issue -- what happened here is pretty black and white and not in dispute. IMSnooping (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The current version of the article accurately describes the "controversy." Exactly why do you want to have a section about a controversy Malkin started but, at the same time, not mention Malkin? The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 01:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Because, as you've been told about 2 dozen times now, she's not the one who started it. She just happens to be the most visible Internet presence who's opined about it. Are we also to have a section on Reuters and the LA Times? Because I could argue that they "started" it. But that, too, would be ridiculous. Absolut started it, rabbit. You need to get over your obsession with Michelle Malkin. She has nothing to do with Absolut and this is an article about Absolut. Are you wanting to give this lady more publicity or something?IMSnooping (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The article contains a reference substantiating the claim that Malkin started the "controversy." If you have credible sources contradicting the claim, by all means show me (just to be clear, it is not enough for a source simply to omit any mention of Malkin by name). Otherwise, it seems to me you are making claims that are simply wrong and that will not be reflected in the article for that reason. The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
It's really poor editing to begin the section on the ad with Michelle Malkin instead of beginning the section on the ad with mention/explanation of the ad. You obviously have some problem with Michelle Malkin rather than are interested in having this entry explain about Absolut and one of its ads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.40.35.52 (talk) 14:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Orange Mike's tweak of my rearrange.Urzatron (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I edited the content as written by "The rabbit" to focus the article on the ad and the reporting by major newspapers and television news. This controversy is about Absolut's ad campaign and the offense as received by the American public. "The rabbit" continually tries to refocus this on "white supremecists" and Michelle Malkin. "The rabbit" is breaking all rules here, attacking those who want to discuss the ad campaign, race baiting and showing complete bias against those who suggest that Absolut's ad campaign was offensive on its own, not because Michelle Malkin raised the issue. "The rabbit" MUST BE BANNED!Phredd (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The most recent edits by Phredd finally give this ad the proper context and NPOV. (Mundunugu (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC))

Let's hope people agree that this mention about the ad and the coverage should remain simplified as it is and that the extraneous discussion about Michelle Malkin might be better placed in her own topic. Certainly any opportunistic discussions about white supremacy or Mexican immigration have no place here. Phredd (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

Absolut vodka was involved in a controversy due to an ad created in Mexico portraying a Mexican map prior the USA-Mexican war of 1848, showing Texas, California, Nevada, New Mexico and other states as part of Mexico with the phrase "In an Absolut World"

The ad run for months in Mexico until blogger Laura Martinez who also works at Advertising Age posted it in English causing the anger of several people who interpreted it as a call for invasion, instead of a recall of history.

On April 4th Absolut apologizes and removed the ad from media.

Due to copyrights the ad can not be showed here.

[edit] White Nationalists? Really?

I suppose Reuters is run by "white nationalists"? The Independent of London? United Press International? The Local, a SWEDISH newspaper? The L.A. Times?

Absolut value of ad low north of border The Herald-Times, IN MEXICO CITY — The latest advertising campaign in Mexico from Swedish vodka maker Absolut seemed to push all the right buttons south of the US border, ... http://www.heraldtimesonline.com/stories/2008/04/08/nationworld.qp-9758035.sto

Absolut vodka pulls ad showing California in Mexico Reuters - 11 hours ago MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - The distillers of Sweden's Absolut vodka have withdrawn an advertisement run in Mexico that angered many US citizens by idealizing ... http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0729018920080408

Storm in a shot glass as advert redraws map of Americas Independent, UK - 14 hours ago By David Usborne in New York A whimsical ad by the makers of Absolut vodka aimed solely at consumers in Mexico has drawn the ire of some ... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/storm-in-a-shot-glass-as-advert-redraws-map-of-americas-805764.html

'Absolut' Arrogance Evening Bulletin, PA - 20 hours ago According to the Swedish vodka maker, the answer is simple: In an Absolut world, Texas' independence would be rescinded, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ... http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=19460395&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8

Absolut Vodka causes a stir with Mexico ad Gadling, CA - 20 hours ago by Anna Brones Apr 7th 2008 @ 11:16AM Absolut Vodka is known round the world for its creative ad campaigns. With the most recent campaign however, ... http://www.gadling.com/2008/04/07/absolut-vodka-causes-a-stir-with-mexico-ad/

Absolut-ly sorry Independent, UK - Apr 7, 2008 By Leonard Doyle The hilarious campaign slogan, "In an Absolut World", showed a 1830s-era map when Mexico included California, Texas and other southwestern ... http://blogs.independent.co.uk/the_campaign_trailers/2008/04/absolut-ly-sorr.html

The world is not Absolut Daily Vidette, IL - Apr 6, 2008 In an advertising campaign for the Swedish vodka brand, Absolut, targeted for Mexico, a map of the US and Mexico is shown. While the actual act of showing a ... http://www.dailyvidette.com/home/news/2008/04/07/Viewpoint/The-World.Is.Not.Absolut-3305800.shtml

Vodka firm 'sorry' over Mexico advert Scotsman, United Kingdom - Apr 6, 2008 By Mark Stevenson THE Absolut vodka company has apologised for an advertising campaign depicting the south-western United States as part of Mexico, ... http://news.scotsman.com/world/Vodka-firm-39sorry39-over-.3952992.jp

Absolut campaign sparks controversy United Press International - Apr 6, 2008 LOS ANGELES, April 6 (UPI) -- A new marketing campaign for the Swedish vodka Absolut that shows California as part of Mexico has sparked a growing ... http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Entertainment/2008/04/06/absolut_campaign_sparks_controversy/8090/

Mexico reclaims California in Absolut Vodka advert The Local, Sweden - Apr 5, 2008 A print and billboard campaign by Absolut Vodka in Mexico has caused tempers to flare in the United States. Some Americans have called for a boycott of the ... http://www.thelocal.se/10928/20080405/

Sparks continue to fly over Absolut's Mexico ad Los Angeles Times, CA - Apr 5, 2008 The furor over the Absolut vodka Mexican border ad roars on. The Drudge Report posted a link to our post yesterday showing the ad and including the tagline, ... http://feeds.latimes.com/~r/LaPlaza/~3/264592416/sparks-fly-over.html

Vodka Maker Apologizes for Ad Depicting Southwest as Part of Mexico FOXNews - Apr 5, 2008 MEXICO CITY — The Absolut vodka company apologized Saturday for an ad campaign depicting the southwestern US as part of Mexico amid angry calls for a ... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,346964,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.130.16 (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right. To call anyone a "white nationalist" for wanting this incident to be covered is well out of bounds iaw WP:AGF. It's almost as though we need another article about extreme WP bias.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Especially since one of the loudest nationalists in this whole silly hissyfit, Malkin, is herself a non-white immigrant. "White" here seems to be shorthand for 'jingoist/chauvinist/anti-Mexican'. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
To clarify: The term "white nationalist" does not refer to a nationalist who is white, but rather a proponent of a social order in which those of European descent (or more broadly those of ancestry traditionally having aggregate socio-economic status comparable to those of European descent depending on who you're talking about) are ascendant. It refers to those who strongly identify with a certain sort of right wing, race-oriented identity politics. The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
You don't have to be "white" to be interested in the borders of the United States.65.40.35.52 (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Clearly. The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 02:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
"Hissy fit" = disagreeing with a liberal who blocks the truth in order to advance thier obvious agenda. Remember folks: calling people "white nationalists" or "white surpemicists" is AOK for Orangemike and the rest of the Wikieditors here. But heaven help you if you try and post what is now a GLOBAL story (UK, Scotland, even Sweden itself). Or, then we just have to protect the article, block posters, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.228.102.242 (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Liberal Intellectual Facism, fighting Liberty Loving Mixed Raced Freedom loving Americans defending their country and their BORDERS. Racist Liberals and Self Hating Americans are the oppositin and the minority in this equation, and really shows the United States for what it is. These liberal "keeper of the truth" are a band of pathetic losers. This is the face of Capitolism, we do not have to like a product simply becasue they put up a political ad, in fact we are fully in our rights to SPEAK ABOUT IT, and to BLOG ABOUT IT, and to NOT BUT THE ABSOLUT brand. Idiots like Rabbit and Orange Mike will never "get" that, and have no business being "keepers of the truth" which casts doubt on the inofrmatino process at the WIKI. IT is ABSOLUT shit and absolut censoring, and absolut (ly) NOT democracy. Remember that little "freedom of ideas" thingy? Liberals tend to forget that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.187.128 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Semi-protection is not "shutting down edits"

Semi-protection merely means that anonymous editors cannot make changes to this controversial article during the current furor. There are a number of registered editors who can and do make edits here, who disagree with me as to the appropriate level of emphasis the Mexican liquor ad should get (including at least one who thinks it is not biased to call this a "reconquista" ad[!]). The only people being excluded are those unwilling to register an account at Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Who are "Orangemike" and The rabbit in the suitcase"? Are they important Wikipedia editors? Do they run things here at Wikipedia? Or are they just run-of-the-mill blame-America-first liberals with typing and vocabulary skills, who want to quash a story with obvious links to the Mexican reconquista movement (think, La Raza), which story has been taken up by virtually the entire main stream media (MSM). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikpedguy (talk • contribs) 20:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC) — Wikpedguy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'm going to stick up here for Orange Mike. There is a furor right now and some of the edits that have gone up have been not only fraught with hot-button language, but also overly emotional. The article does contain a reference to the ad, as it should. I personally think that a photo of the ad would be appropriate. But the term "reconquista" doesn't belong in the article....not to mention the vandalism he removed.
I was critical of the "rabbit" fellow, because he seemed pretty determined to keep any mention of the ad off the article altogether -- saying that it violated the SOAP guidelines. Well, that's ridiculous -- as is the charge that it was because of "white nationalists". But Orange Mike has acted appropriately here.IMSnooping (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Snoop! I try to be most rigorously fair with regard to articles where my opinions are otherwise. Several Ron Paul fans will tell you that I'm pretty good at it; but like any human being, I'm not perfect. And it's not like I'm some mysterious figure in the distance; I'm about as visible as a non-notable person can be. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Try to be truthful. Reconquista was the entire motivation for the Absolut ad, which was run in Mexico and targeted Mexicans. The map was not in the ad for fans of historical maps. The map was in the ad because (1) Absolut is trying to increase their sales in Mexico (I saw 3% mentioned somewhere, perhaps 3% of world-wide Absolut sales are in Mexico, whereas 50% are in the USA); (2) every Mexican who viewed the ad immediately tought "reconquista," which is a popular movement in Mexico, for several reasons; (3) Absolut was attempting to tie a popular Mexican movement with Absolut Swedish vodka. If you deny that, then your truth circuit is malfunctioning. It is self-evident that the the inclusion of the word "reconquista" is essential to this topic in the Wikipedia Absolut article. Appropriateness proven. Furthermore, it was Orangemike who wrongly targeted the word "reconquista". Reconquista is the very essence of the ad, the whole reason for the ad. Wikpedguy (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
No, the whole reason for the ad was to sell more vodka to Mexican consumers. Are you anti-capitalism? Absolut ads use anything and everything that they hope will resonate with potential customers.
And I think you're sadly deceived if you genuinely believe that "reconquista" is a major movement in Mexico. Sure, it's the kind of thing that many Mexican patriots would like to see, in an ideal universe (which is kinda what Absolut was tapping into); but hey, I'd like to see the Upper Peninsula returned to Wisconsin, and the English crown out of Man, Wales, Cornwall, etc.; doesn't mean it's gonna happen. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
You think Absolut's marketing folks were advocating "reconquista"? Well, that would shock me. But, either way, we can't get in their heads. And, moreover, "reconquista" is a charged term that has no place in a factual article about a factual event related to Absolut's history. They ran the ad, it was a stupid ad, it created a furor, mention of the ad belongs on their WP article -- but it needs to be kept factual, dispassionate, and neutral.
My major beef here was people trying to keep mention of the ad off the article -- blaming editors, blaming bloggers, blaming racism, etc. The irony is that they were citing political advocacy as the reason, when that's almost certainly what was motivating them to block it.IMSnooping (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
As is perfectly clear in my post, Absolut was attempting to tie the popular reconquista movement with Absolut vodka, to increase sales. There are several actors here: the local Mexican ad agency in Mexico, Absolut's team in New York, and the Absolut company in Sweden. Absolut apparently has newly put in place procedures to review locally created content from an international perspective, given that the Internet can turn local into global very fast. Ask Geraldine Ferraro. It is entirely likely, but immaterial, that the local ad agency in Mexico does support reconquista. Why not? There is no clue whether Absolut New York and Absolut Sweden support reconquista, but as of today, I bet they would be reluctant to tie Absolut and reconquista, either way, anytime soon. You underestimate the popularity of reconquista with Mexicans. A Latino bus driver in San Francisco patiently explained to me the Mexican heritage in San Francisco, referencing the various streets named after Mexican mayors, etc. The Mexicans apparently like to think that Aztlan will simply be handed back to Mexico because it's the right thing to do, and the Mexicans deserve it. Maybe Orangemike agrees. Wikpedguy (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Now I know how that guy in Stealer's Wheel felt. Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right -- here I am, stuck in the middle with...well, seemingly nobody. IMSnooping (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I've never been to Wikipedia before tonight. This was the first link I've ever made to the site. After reading all of this discussion I have no intention to even look at the actual article on Absolut or, frankly, any other article in Wikipedia. I had heard great things about Wikipedia - a worldwide encyclopedia filled with current facts about millions of matters that puts Encarta to shame. Well...shame on all of you. Who, What, When, Where and Why (all sides). That's journalist integrity. Obviously the editors here have forgotten that.71.68.16.140 (talk) 03:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reconquista Movement Popular in Mexico

To provide more information about the popularity of reconquista in Mexico, at http://www.illegalaliens.us/aztlan.htm, please find the following text: "A 'Hispanic Homeland' could be written off as the work of extremists were it not for wide-spread support by Mexicans. A June 2002 Zogby poll of Mexicans found that a substantial majority of Mexican citizens believe that southwestern America is rightfully the territory of Mexico and that Mexicans do not need the permission of the U.S. to enter. The poll found that 58 percent of Mexicans agree with the statement, "The territory of the United States' southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico." Zogby said 28 percent disagreed, while another 14 percent said they weren't sure." Wikpedguy (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

lol. No, we will not link to that site and call it a source. Mexican sentiment on whether the territories taken by the US in the 19th century were taken legally or ethically do not go to their interest in actually taking them back anyway. The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
roflmao. As usual, you are talking down to us in an effort to quash discourse. You are a rabbit and live in suitcase? Housecleaning. My post above establishes that Mexican reconquista of the U.S. southwest is a popular idea in Mexico. It is summarily obvious that Absolut's Mexican ad agency sought to tie Absolut vodka to the popular reconquista movement, and thereby increase sales, and earn their marketing fee and future business from Absolut. Someone, way above in this talk, tried to claim that reconquista is not a big movement in Mexico. Was that you? The claim is disproven. Wikipedia itself has a page on the issue, to wit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista_(Mexico). The word "reconquista" belongs in the Absolut article. The words "alleged reconquista" should be changed to "reconquista." The map included in the ad should be included in the Absolut article. Further, the Absolut page should be referenced in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista_(Mexico) and vice-versa. Wikpedguy (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not talking down, and wikipedia is not a blog. Who says its obvious that Absolut's ad sought to tie it to the reconquista movement? I could argue that Absolut was trying to bring in cartographers and collectors of old-school maps by that ad. With an ad like this, it can mean whatever it wants to. If it means reconquista to you, great! Unless Absolut's ad agency comes out and says, yes, we are trying to move into the reconquista movement, keep your allegations to yourself.--147.126.95.167 (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
You can pretend it means whatever you want it to mean. The reality is that the vast majority recognize it as part of the reconquista movement. The fact that the word "alleged" is thrown in here instead of simply linking the word "reconquista" to Wikipedia's own article is trying to minimize a fact.
From http://www.zogby.com/soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=4935:
"the southwest US belongs to Mexico. This view is reflected in a recent Zogby poll. The poll revealed that 58% of Mexicans believe that the southwest US belongs to Mexico. That probably explains why 60% of Mexicans also believe there should be no border control."
I guess people can continue to try to bias this article with their political beliefs but the fact is that 58% of Mexicans does not constitute "alleged reconquista" movements. Nor does it mean this ad plays to "cartographers and collectors of old-school maps" (unless you find a poll showing the majority of Mexico like maps). (Mundunugu (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] The Role of Michelle Malkin in the Mexican ad story

Our second reference in the article says:

The blogospheric bashing of Absolut was set off by the conservative commentator Michelle Malkin, who posted the Mexican ad on michellemalkin.com, her blog site. From there it quickly migrated to other US sites, including the influential drudgereport.com, further kindling criticism.

It seems to me that to say Malkin was merely one amongst many outraged patriots in the blogosphere downplays her role in a way that obscures the actual events. The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I should add that this is not purely a matter of priority. Even if she weren't the first to post on the matter, it would still be more than fair to say she had a leadership role in the prosecution of the campaign against the ad. The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The first conservative blogger to mention the ad (as far as I can tell) was Jim Hoft ("Gateway Pundit"), in this post [5]. Malkin picked it up from him or one of those who followed him. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
So it would seem, but there is an important difference between gateway pundit's post and Malkin's first post on the matter: Malkin provides her readers with contact information. In other words, she moves the issue from a simple "that taint right" to the level of email campaigns. Again, I don't think you can accurately portray this story without mentioning Malkin's central role. The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, you might like to take a look at Malkin's recent posts on this topic, particularly, her posts about this very Wikipedia page. I think it would provide some insight into the volume of new editors here and the tone of their commentary. The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You're obviously trying to marginalize this part of the Absolut entry as being "a Michelle Malkin thing." Anyone can see that.Urzatron (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think giving a full account of who was involved and in what capacity unduly marginalizes anything. Do you dispute that various bloggers, led by Michelle Malkin, drove the controversy? Unless you have credible information to the contrary, the current version must stand. I believe it is succinct and factually accurate, without "weasel words" designed to obscure what actually happened.
Attempts to keep the wording vague are simply an effort to make the campaign appear broader based than the evidence shows it actually was. The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
rv. "Led by Michelle Malkin" is uncited and original research. This isn't "a Michelle Malkin thing" and you know it. And it's not "vague." Your introduction of Michelle Malkin into the Absolut page has been allowed by me and others in an attempt to reach consensus. Other people are trying to reach consensus -- you're not. One might argue that she doesn't belong there at all. She's just one blogger.Urzatron (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, you are reverting more than three times per day. Please do not do this.Urzatron (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, a wikilawyer. It is not uncited, it is a close paraphrase of a cited article. Again, if there is information that contradicts the claim that Malkin led the campaign beyond the opinion of other editors, please present it. The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I must have missed the citation. What was it?Urzatron (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Your continued insistence that Malkin has anything to do with this is preposterous. With a search on "Absolut ad" in google news the first ten news items showed only ONE that had the word "Malkin" in it and that is because it was written by her! If Reuters, FOX, Winnipeg Sun, Consumerist, etc. all think that Malkin has nothing to do with this who are you to pretend she does? You give me an outside source that shows she has anything to do with this or remove the reference.

"Do you dispute that various bloggers, led by Michelle Malkin, drove the controversy? Unless you have credible information to the contrary" Yes, Reuters disagrees with you (http://www.reuters.com/article/ADVERT/idUSN0729018920080409): "Although it was not shown in the United States, U.S. media outlets picked up on the ad". They don't say "Malkin". They don't say "right-wing extremists". They don't say "bloggers". They say "media outlets". NO ONE else says "Malkin". Now, the burden of proof shifts to you rabbit. I've provided proof Malkin doesn't belong in this article (as much as a negative can be proved). You provide the proof she does. And one last thing: I believe in order for something to be included in the Wikipedia entry there must be some outside proof showing it needs to be included (yet you cite nothing other than your opinion on Malkin), not the other way around. No one should be forced to prove a negative here, which is what you are trying to force others to do. (Mundunugu (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC))


[edit] "Reconquista"

I've removed references to "Reconquista" and the link to the corresponding wikipedia page because:

1) The page is currently in rather poor order, the recent target of a VfD and currently under review for rather severe POV issues, hence probably isn't the kind of thing to be directing casual readers to.

2) It is jargon used by the bloggers who began the whole business that is heavily loaded (for example, its use in wikipedia outside of a page dedicated to explaining what it's supposed to be implies that it has an actual, coherent existence and a significant following in Mexico, which is very, very far from having been established in these pages or, as far as I can tell, elsewhere). I've reworded the passage to reflect what the actual substantive claims of the ads critics with respect to incitement of some sort of aggression amongst Mexicans against the United States are (mirroring language that can be found either in our reference on the matter or in the actual blog posts they reference in turn).

Also, as I believe I've mentioned, you cannot discuss a controversy with any credibility without saying who the opposing parties are. Hence, it is unacceptably vague to merely say "some Americans" found the ads offensive and it is really rather striking that some editors are keen to deal in that level of vagueness when our own references tell us pretty much exactly who those Americans were. And to say "many newspapers, television networks, and conservative bloggers reported that some Americans found the ads offensive" is simply perverse. The conservative bloggers were reporting that... they themselves were offended. The effort to disconnect those bloggers from the "some" or "many Americans" who were offended is bizarre. They are one and the same and if the article does not reflect that, it has broken faith with the reader. The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 05:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for saying that "They are one and the same"? TIA. Urzatron (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I see that this part of the article sources a British column. A quick search finds an MSNBC article, much more reliable, more verifiable and more pertinent in that it does its reporting from the country in question, the United States. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24021933/ Urzatron (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Do not remove relevant information from the page unless you have legitimate challenges to its relevance or correctness. I do not need to source my talk page comments (though my claim is easily seen to be accurate, both based on our reference and the actual blog posts), but I have sourced my edits. Now that you see I have done so, you try to remove the reference that has been there for weeks by replacing it with a vague article with far less information than the previous one with claims that it's "more reliable." If it's reliable, add it, but don't replace existing references unless you challenge their veracity. The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I'm sorry, but I don't consider an MSNBC news report "vague" in contrast with a column written by a reporter for a paper from a different country than which the story in question takes place. I know it seems like I "removed a source," but no -- I replaced a source with a better contradictory one. You see? These sources contradict. Also, I would like to say that you speak in a lot of "Do not do this" and "Do not do that" language. I'd like to point you to WP:OWN. Urzatron (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
It contains far less information about who was involved than the other one (which was written by a guy in New York, I believe). Why are you so keen to obscure who was involved? And really now, do you really want to argue that a source is less reliable by virtue of being an international publication based in another country? The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I would surely argue that MSNBC is a more reliable source for a news story taking place in the United States than "one of the youngest UK national daily newspapers, with a circulation of 240,116" (The Independent). The writer for The Independent in this case didn't even attribute his conclusions -- and his piece reads as a column. You mention "obsur[ing] who was involved" -- you have to understand that I look at it the other way around. MSNBC is taking a more journalistically reasonable and defensible approach. Urzatron (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand that you have a desire to remove any connection between the "controversy" and the conservative bloggers who initiated it. I understand that you only recently realized my edits connecting the two were substantiated by a reference that has stood the scrutiny of editors for several weeks and decided to replace it with a reference that doesn't even use the word "conservative" (!), in spite of the fact that you know yourself that the complaints did indeed originate from conservatives and more specifically certain conservative blogs and their readers.
It is nonsense to compare to the ages of the Independent and MSNBC (!) as a method of gauging reliability and even more absurd to talk about their respective countries of incorporation. When you make arguments like this, together with grinning comments about how you bet that your edits really don't accurately reflect the situation with respect to who was complaining about the ad, it raises some questions. The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. We're all working together here.

Both sources are now in the article. Do we need to continue contrasting them? Urzatron (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Rabbit before you go on your conservative bloggers obsession you should not ignore the other national media sourced facts that the conservative blogger Michele had NOTHING to do with this. NOTHING. Please stop changing this fact based article with your pet obsessions. Until you have PROOF and can refute with the facts I gave above stop with your left-wing POV pushing in this article.(Mundunugu (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Reaction among _______

I'm interested in the idea that Orangemike just presented, which is the idea that perhaps "Reaction among Americans" is too broad. I don't disagree with this idea. However, I would like to note that the word "conservatives" was added in reference to the MSNBC source -- and I don't believe that that source mentions conservatives at all.

Perhaps "Reaction among some American consumers"? Thanks in advance if you comment. Urzatron (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Your point is also a good one; edited text to match source, although I think it's a pretty safe bet that the furor (to the extent that there was one) was mostly among conservative consumers. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, yeah -- if I had to bet, I would bet that the majority of people upset by the ad were conservative. :) Urzatron (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, Mike, but would you comment on the removal of the previous source that discussed who brought the controversy to the fore in favor of one that conspicuously does not provide that same information? The previous reference to the Independent, which Urzatron has removed on grounds that it's foreign, gave a pretty clear account of these and other matters that MSNBC essentially omits. The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Here is the reference in question: David Usborne Storm in a shot glass as advert redraws map of Americas 8 April 2008 The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
It looks like he put in both sources, which I don't disagree with. Urzatron (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Well played, Mike. The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope everyone is in agreement with my edit just now to revert a rather strongly POV-pushing edit by Phred? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Phred's rewrite didn't introduce any new sources -- it just seemed to characterize the same information differently, which I don't find necessary. Urzatron (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Source for Opposition to the Ad

Perhaps this knowledge will help Rabbit, OrangeMike and others like them see why not just "a small contingent of white supremacists and other miscellaneous right wingers" were vexed at the Mexican Reconquista evident in the Absolut ad. Increased crime rates (Modesto, California is the car theft capital of the nation; several times now, trial courts in Riverside County, California have had to suspend all civil prosecutions and focus only on the backlogged criminal prosecutions; California prisons are overflowing with Latinos), the increased school drop-out rates, the refusal to change to English usage, etc. which are all part of the Mexican invasion, are of concern to knowledgeable U.S. citizens on all political sides.

An important sentence from the article quoted below: "Three-fourths of Americans wanted more restrictions on immigration." (Pew Research Center poll)

The Way Our World Ends by Patrick J. Buchanan http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26323 Posted: 05/02/2008

75% of Americans want more restrictions on immigration, but Rabbit and OrangeMike describe crtics of the Absolut Reconquista ad as "a small contingent of white supremacists and other miscellaneous right wingers."

Then R, OM and U engage in smug, incestuous little small talk enjoying each other's revisions to the article. I have a job and cannot spend every day protecting the POV of my favorite articles. Apparently these ladies are trustafarians or beneficiaries of government largess (taxpayer funded) and can hover 24/7 over their Wikipedia entries like mother hens.

Wikipedia needs a Rescue from these birds. Wikpedguy (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

People won't take you seriously if you make personal attacks and don't assume good faith. Urzatron (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)