Talk:Absinthe/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

External Links Guidelines

I would like to establish guidelines for the types of links that can be added to the External Links section. Here are questions to be answered:

1. Can commercial sites be added?

2. Can sites the link to commercial sites be added? -- unsigned by 70.90.174.174

1. Depends on the site and the point. 2. Yes, but again depends on the site and the point. Before editing the page again you might consider looking over the quick points made in the Absinthe archive as well as explaining your position. -- Ari 02:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ari, I am tempted to say that it might be fairer to provide and agree the guidelines in advance. Of course I have probably put in more than my fair share of links already, so I could be assumed to have some bias. That said, I am a little uneasy about so many links to Oxy's sites which all link to very commercial businesses. NPOV? Alanmoss 08:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Alan, in general the guidelines are in the archive (and of course wikipedia rules). Basically the goal is to add new information with the least amount of commercial or vendor linkage. Oxy is becoming more commercial but his sites are some of the best on the internet and don't contain too much commercial information. I've talked to him about this concern and before thujone.info was added he reduced the advertising and increased the content you can't find anywhere else. He just happens to be the person who is spreading out and buying other sites (when the opportunity is given to him). For example, if Hartsmar bought feeverte, then he would have two sites in the list instead of one. -- Ari 17:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Alanmoss, all the links in the External links section are either owned by Oxy's or are sites that he benifits financially from. I think it is biased to let some sites in and remove all others that are not related to Oxy's site. I would like for other sites to be allowed.

I would like for the External links section to be broken down into several areas; Absinthe Guides, Absinthe Vendors, Absinthe Arts ( Art, Music, Literature), etc. And each site's title be written in a common format, removing all references to words like; the oldest, the only, the best, the official, etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.4.120 (talk • contribs)

This isn't the place to set or discuss guidelines. There is already a guideline for external links, here. Most of the links in the Absinthe article were reviewed during the featured article process and found to be useful. Kafziel ^Talk 15:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

24.4.4.120, lets go through the list and the propositions.

• Virtual absinthe museum - Owned by oxy, the best absinthe information site on the internet, IMO. It is sourced in the article and contains added information not in the article. This originally linked to the museum page and not the main page, but a redesign and more information got the link switched. I partially agree. Although it would add to the links in the article, the more important parts could be linked to separately instead of the main page.
• La Fee verte - Currently owned by Oxy but not originally. The largest english absinthe connoisseur forum around, includes absinthe guide and additional information.
• Wormwood society - Not owned by Oxy and Oxy doesn't profit from it. The largest america based english absinthe connoisseur forum around. Contains information and articles as well as the forum.
• Absinthe.se - Not owned by Oxy and Oxy doesn't profit from it. Information, reviews, etc.
• thujone.info - Owned by Oxy. Contains papers and information not found anywhere else about the infamous chemical that is too often linked to absinthe.
• Video - Not owned by Oxy and Oxy doesn't profit from it. Youtube style video.

Although some of these sites link the Oxy's commercial ventures I don't think the links are intrusive or outweigh the information given.

Other sites are not kept out. The archives go over this.

Propositions,

• Absinthe guides - There are few around that provide good information. Would be a repeat of three sites in the current list.
• Absinthe vendors - This would be a No. Wikipedia is not an indiscrimate site for links, especially commercial links. If a vendor or brand is notable enough to be included then they should have their own wikipedia page and be able to stand scrutiny as part of wikipedia. A large vendor list on the absinthe page is exactly what I'm trying to avoid.
• Absinthe arts - an interesting idea but I could see it having a similar issue as the vendor section. Of note there is a separate page for absinthe in popular culture and art. -- Ari 17:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

So, Ari is arguing that as long as a commercial site contains useful and/or unique information, then it should be allowed? It just seems like a slippery slope. What if another site came along that had the exact same information as Virtual absinthe museum, but had a commercial slant to a different vendor? Which site would be allowed? Virtual absinthe museum because it is older? Does it matter how obtrusive or obvious the commercial bits are inside the site? Just because the owner of the site has a connection with the main editors of this page, does that mean they should be given some leeway? 24.16.41.151 19:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

While it could be a slippery slope, I don't think it will be. If a site came along with equal information to the virtual museum and added new content I would consider keeping both. If, hypothetically, they contained and added the same information I would vote for the one with the least commercial intrusions on it. The point is to provide readers with the easiest list to find more additional information and to do it as vendor neutral as possible. The neutrality is to prevent link wars (vendors adding their own link and deleting others, etc) and to weed out shill sites that aren't made to educate or learn about absinthe but to shill but to profit from the link. It should be noted although I have talked with the owners of every site mentioned above I have no commercial interest or obligation in/to any of them. -- Ari 20:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that commercial content is fine as long as there is valuble unique information accompanying it. Is that correct? I think this is fine. However, I don't think it would be too difficult for someone to "rip" the entire "Virtual absinthe museum", then post it on their own server with slightly less obtrusive commercial content that instead benefits them. This is where I see this going if we are to allow commercial stuff at all. Maybe that would be good because the average reader would be better off by having less commercial intrusions, however it doesn't seem fair to the person who worked hard to create the resource in the first place.24.16.11.244 21:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That case would be covered by the part of the External Links guideline that says not to link to sites that violate others' copyrights. —Celithemis 21:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

So in conclusion, the editors of this pages are saying that it is acceptable to have commercial sites and sites with external links listed in the External links section; providing that they do not violate copyright laws. And it is OK for some duplication of content, i.e. the FeeVerte.net forum and the Wormwoodsociety.org forum.

I will add the www.AbsintheBuyersGuide.com site to the External links section, it is a site that I find to be very useful, and contains a great list of absinthe products produced around the world. Each photo was taken by the Absinthe Buyers Guide owner to insure quality and consistency of the photos.

I would like to commend Ari and the others for creating this great Wikipedia page, a job well done. I do hope that the editors of the page will keep the spirit of being unbiased and tolerant of other opinions, that is what the Wikipedia Guidelines recommend.

I will ask the other editor to consider removing text from the description of other External links that may be considered a criticisms of other links; i.e. the large Absinthe Buyers Guide in the La Fee Verte's description.

Thanks again for you professional behavior and work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.4.4.120 (talk) 06:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

We are saying that it is acceptable to have sites that have as little commercial as possible while providing more (and new) information to the reader. FeeVerte and Wormwood society are not duplicates but separate forums with slightly different aims and different site content.

Absinthebuyersguide has been looked at before in the archives but since it may have improved I will go over it again.

• Buyersguide - I can't find any actual guide, no information on products, no opinions or reviews only a picture and a link to a sponsors shop (the same place is all cases but two I've seen). Oddly the guide doesn't contain images of products their sponsor doesn't/didn't carry. This "guide" seems like nothing more than an attempt to make money through (or for) the sponsor.
• Faq & history - Nothing new that isn't addressed in the wikipedia article or one of the other links. Unfortunately it also contains errors.
• Articles - Copies of other peoples articles.

I don't think this link has a place on the external links list because the guide has no actual guide but appears to be a thinly veiled attempt at advertising, the faq and information sections don't contain anything new but do contain errors and the articles section is just a bunch of articles copied from elsewhere.

I also don't see the "Large absinthe buyers guide" description to be a critisism of anything. -- Ari 16:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Quote: "it is a site that I find to be very useful, and contains a great list of absinthe products produced around the world. Each photo was taken by the Absinthe Buyers Guide owner to insure quality and consistency of the photos." I would strugle to find one way in which the Absinthe Buyers Guide is useful to anyone apart from its owner and to Alandia: it is litte more than an advertising front for Alandia with very little useful content. A great list? Do you mean a high quality list, or a long list? It is primarily a list of products that Alandia stock. Quality and consistency of photos? Big deal. I vote "no" to including this external link. I also vote to cut down the links to Oxy's sites: from 3 (when I last looked) plus all the other links from the article, to 1. Alanmoss 18:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like 7 links in total to Oxy's sites which all link to his commercial operations. OK, there's a lot of useful content on his sites, but I suggest one external link to http://www.oxygenee.com/ and NO links to the ABG. Alanmoss 18:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the first comment but not the second. I don't think links should be removed just because the same person owns the sites. The references are citations and need to point to the place giving the information. The three links in the external links section connects to three different sites with different points. They should stand or fall on content. -- Ari 18:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

- This is a plea for fairness, this is a public edited site - I don't think that it is fair and unbaised for the editors of this Wikipedia page to determine who's sites are added. All the sites in the External links page provide similar information, and all the owners of those sites work together in one way or another and profit from those links and relationships. Not to mention the fact, that many of them are the editors of this page and do not want the AbsintheBuyersGuide.com to be listed because it does further their agenda. This is completly wrong. The guidelines of the Wikipedia states that editor work togehter and be tolerant of opposing opinions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.90.174.174 (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes this is a public edited site, but that doesn't mean the public can add anything they want, and the point is to benefit those who are reading the article.

"All the sites in the External links page provide similar information,"

Incorrect. Each site provides both similar and different information and resources.

"and all the owners of those sites work together in one way or another and profit from those links"

Incorrect. While those know each other and work together they do not profit from each others links as far as I know.

"not to mention the fact, that many of them are the editors of this page"

Incorrect.

"and do not want the AbsintheBuyersGuide to be listed because it does further their agenda."

Incorrect. You will notice none of the complaints about ABG have anything to do with who owns what.

"editor work togehter and be tolerant of opposing opinions."

Exactly what opposing opinion does ABG carry?

In all fairness this is not the first time someone has come along blanking the links and requesting ABG be included other sites be removed using the argument that the page was biased. Not only did the then editors agree it shouldn't be included but I gave a list of improvements that would probably make me support it. I extend that again. I have listed reasons why I don't think it should belong, and if those were fixed I would most likely support its addition. If it was done well enough I would add it myself. Unfortunately my suggestions were ignored and here we are with the same debate and same site. -- Ari 01:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with alanmoss. There is no need for the external links to have so many Oxy sites because they are linked directly from the article. There is also no need for the biased absinthebuyersguide site.24.16.41.151 06:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been monitoring this discussion, and I do not think it is within the editors rights to "ban" content or links. Editors can disagree on facts like dates and times. Editors cannot and should never ban any contributions, links or otherwise. All the informaiton and sites have value, and it is up to the reader to use the information as they see fit.

We don't "ban" links; there is a guideline in place that explains which links are appropriate and which links aren't. The guideline was created through consensus among registered users, and the registered users here agree that it's being applied appropriately in this case. If you disagree with the guideline, this isn't the place to suggest a change. For the most part, we only link to sites that offer unique information that couldn't possibly be added to the article otherwise. Other external links may qualify as reliable sources and may be used to cite statements in the text. Apart from those two uses, there's not much need for external links to be posted in articles, because Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. Kafziel ^Talk 19:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Kafziel, a consensus does not replace the guidelines of the Wikipedia. Editors do not have the rights to remove contributions made by other editors. It appears that you have a history of inappropriate behavior within the Wikipedia community, your discussions page show many complaints and warnings from other editors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.127.149.31 (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, consensus absolutely replaces the guidelines; guidelines are created by consensus, and they are intended to describe reality rather than dictating behavior. Guidelines are always subject to review and change, which is why I suggested that you request a change at the guideline page, rather than trying to force a change here. Perhaps you're confusing guidelines with policy. See this page for clarification on that. My point was that consensus here upholds the guideline and doesn't seem to indicate the need to make an exception.

Can you show me examples of my "inappropriate behavior"? Looking at my talk page, I see a couple of thank-you notes and apologies, a few requests for help, an offer of adminship, an esperanza newsletter, and a discussion with an editor who was eventually blocked for disrupting this page.

I strongly suggest that you acquaint yourself with the policies I've offered. If your point was valid, there would be no need for personal attacks. Kafziel ^Talk 07:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned several times thoughout this page, many people who find the www.AbsintheBuyersGuide.com to be a great website have tired over and over again to add it to the Wikipedia Absinthe page only to have it removed by editors who are biased and have personal problem with that site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.127.149.31 (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood Kafziel, he linked to the guidelines of wikipedia and yes other editors may edit your contributions "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." The editors here are following wikipedia guidelines.

Can you explain why ABG is a great website, why you think it should be included despite the listed objections (perhaps addressing those objections), and what personal problems editors here have with the site? -- Ari 05:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Ari - There is no misunderstanding. If you read all the post above, it is very obvious that some of the editors of the Absinthe page have a grudge against the ABG. Otherwise, they would just simply say that they would prefer that it not be listed, but they wouldn't be deleting it and making wild accusations. The ABG is a nice site, it provide information about absinthe, offers really nice photos, it easy to navigate, and tries to offer correct information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.127.149.31 (talk) 22:32, 17 November 200 (UTC)

Can you point out these grudges (keeping in mind valid points are not grudges), and wild accusations? Being a nice site, providing equal information to the page and other sites listed, containing photos, being easy to navigate and trying to be correct doesn't make it based on the guidelines. -- Ari 06:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anyone here having a grudge either. I admit I was involved in the absinthe business in the past, so could be considered to have had some bias then. Not now. I also had some inside knowledge about the ABG and the heavy advertising element involved. To be 100% frank, the guide is largely a con: you see a nice photo of a brand, you click on it for a review, and it normally (not 100% admittedly) takes you straight to Alandia. It is not an absinthe buyer's guide. We have asked those who are suggesting the guide be included to say what is so good about it. I see being "a nice site, it provide information about absinthe, offers really nice photos, it easy to navigate, and tries to offer correct information" as no justification at all. Ask the owner of ABG to give direct links to the brand sites and not to one absinthe retailer: that could suggest some integrity but he won't do it. Why because he is being paid by Alandia for the links. Alanmoss 07:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Alanmoss & Ari - The overwhelming effort to suppress the Absinthe Buyers Guide is proof enough, not to mention the ugly and angry criticism. It is sad when someone make ugly accusations, i.e. "To be 100% frank, the guide is largely a con:". The Absinthe Buyers Guide acknowledges it sponsor, and is proud to have support from a fine distributor. The Wormwood Society is no different than the Absinthe Buyers Guide, it provides information and offers links to a limited set of vendors. Close examination of the sites listed in the External links section will show that they are all tied in and working together for a common agenda. Therefor, the Absinthe Buyers Guide, not being apart of that group is the only real reason why editors loyal to that group are working so hard to prevent it from being listed.

In conclusion, the history of edits and discussions show that the biased editors of the Wikipedia Absinthe page censor and ban all sites that do not further the commercial agenda of following sites and the sites they promote:

La Fee Verte The Wormwood Society The Virtual Absinthe Museum Thujone.info Liqueurs de France Absinthe-Distribution Vert d'Absinthe

Finally, there are many absinthe distributors who have tried to be listed, and they have all been criticized and ban from this site.

It is sad that several editors are taking advantage and manipulating this public service to further their own agenda.

As a last plea for fairness, I suggest the following actions:

1. All editors reconsider their behavior and allow all well-known absinthe related sites to be listed in the External links section.

2. In the spirit of compromise, all editor reframe from personal attacks and be tolerant of others.

3. This "ugly" discussion page regarding the External Links Guideline be removed. It does nothing but give this well-done site a black-eye and will do nothing but give outside readers a since of mistrust for the absinthe community.

This is my final post regarding this discussion, and I will continue to fight for equal representation on the public Wikipedia page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.127.149.31 (talk) 08:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply to 68.127.149.31

"The overwhelming effort to suppress the Absinthe Buyers Guide is proof enough"

I was asking for specific proof. You will notice the reason I say no to ABG has been clearly listed, and I even gave things that could be fixed for me to possibly support the site.

"The Wormwood Society is no different than the Absinthe Buyers Guide, it provides information and offers links to a limited set of vendors."

Incorrect (for the second time). The Wormwood society provides a forum aimed towards US residents with new information. It also contains it's own articles, and a small but real buyers guide (containing reviews and information about products). etc.

"Close examination of the sites listed in the External links section will show that they are all tied in and working together for a common agenda."

What is this common agenda? They are all connected because there is currently only a small group of people wanting to provide more information about absinthe (both historical and modern). It has already been said once they do not all profit from each other.

"Therefor, the Absinthe Buyers Guide, not being apart of that group is the only real reason why editors loyal to that group are working so hard to prevent it from being listed."

Completely false, perhaps you should re read this talk section to find out the real reasons. I don't even know if Kafziel knows the owners of the sites. The first time ABG was rejected I know some editors then didn't have any connection to "that group."

"Finally, there are many absinthe distributors who have tried to be listed, and they have all been criticized and ban from this site."

Because as already stated by wikipedia guidelines, wikipedia is not a link directory or commercial advertising. To repeat myself, if a product or vendor feels they are notable enough for a mention they could always create a page for their product/company and subjecting it to wikipedia notability guidelines. Trying to muscles sites into the absinthe article because they feel the should get traffic to their affiliate/vendor/product, shows no interest in absinthe education or respect for wikipedia.

"1. All editors reconsider their behavior and allow all well-known absinthe related sites to be listed in the External links section."

I don't see that as serving a purpose but only causing more problems. I choose to follow wikipedia guidelines and give the readers easy access to new information and resources.

"3. This "ugly" discussion page regarding the External Links Guideline be removed. It does nothing but give this well-done site a black-eye and will do nothing but give outside readers a since of mistrust for the absinthe community."

I see nothing 'ugly' about this discussion and needs to remain to document the arguments put forth for and against the site being included. Eventually it will be archived and refactored.

"This is my final post regarding this discussion, and I will continue to fight for equal representation on the public Wikipedia page."

Which you are free to do. Although I would hope instead of trying to change wikipedia guidelines you would just help change the page. Remember contrary to the claims of bias this will be the fourth time I have offered my possible support if the page was updated to became a real resource and buyers guide ('possible' only because I would need to see the final page first). When doing this, please do not disrupt the absinthe article. -- Ari 17:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Does this case still require mediation or can I close it? --Ideogram 20:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

based on the opener's actions as well as them apparently leaving for now, I think it can be closed. -- Ari 21:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I will close the case. If it needs reopening, leave a note on my talk page. --Ideogram 21:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hallucinations?

When I came to this page i was very surprised to find very little information about the hallucination properties. I do not know if it is a myth or true but the wide spread ideas out there make is seem like it should have its own section. When people think of absynth they think of hallucinating (i.e. Mitch Hedberg and Eurotrip) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.139.0.62 (talk) 23:59, 18:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it needs to be stated clearer. I thought it was included in the header but I'll add it in as well as fix up the article.

It's talked about in the controversy section, "The effects of absinthe have been described by artists as mind-opening and even hallucinogenic and by prohibitionists as turning good people mad and desolate. Both are exaggerations." thujone also addresses it.

It's a myth. -- Ari 03:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Mitch Hedberg's bit was that it didn't make him hallucinate. Kafziel ^Talk 15:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Added a bit about the myth of hallucinations. -- Ari 06:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

This article seems to me fairly biased. It might as well be avertisment for a substance that is still illegal in quite a few countries. The opening section even says "Even though it was vilified, no evidence shows it to be any more dangerous than ordinary alcohol." .. erm how is that NPOV in an article about a prohibited substance even if you have some link on the web stating the same ? How come there are more modern regulations against it ? Obviously there is/must've been evidence even if obviously contested by supporters. Even the "controversy" section dosen't seem to contain information from both sides. --Helixdq 15:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not POV if it's true. There's not necessarily evidence to support the idea of a health risk; sometimes things just get banned for social or religious reasons, like alcohol in general during prohibition. But if you have other information from reliable sources that says differently, you're free to present it. You may want to discuss changes here first, since this is a featured article. Kafziel ^Talk 15:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, I would suggest reading the article first. You will see absinthe is not illegal in most countries. The articles gives some basic explanations but doesn't go into detail (for length reasons) of the ban. There has never been any valid evidence saying absinthe should be treated any differently than alcohol. It was banned because of poor science, a growing prohibitionist movement, public fear and wine lobbyists seeing it as a danger to their profits. Some of the science against absinthe focused on concentrated wormwood oil and assumed that the drink would produce similar effects. The same scientist then studied alcoholics, where he claimed absinthe caused them to immediately hallucinate and convulse, something we know is not true, and he believed the damage it caused would be passed down to the Man's children degenerating the superior french race. -- Ari 16:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

And I could probably put up a case that it would be more logical to ban Coca-Cola on the basis that it did once contain cocaine. Absinthe ingredients were not the problem: absinthe made in people's zinc bath tubs was (as would making vodka in one's bath). Although this 1934 article from Time suggests that blackmail and fear of impotence were also issues behind the ban! Alanmoss 16:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

'ancient' absinthe

Is there a citation for this? It's common for old jars marked "absynthe" to be mistaken for the product the page is describing. While wormwood (grande absinthe) was used through out history the oldest known (translated) recipe of distilled grande wormwood, anise and fennel colored with petite wormwood and hyssops, etc. which directly turned into the first product marketed as "absinthe" is around 1794. -- Ari 04:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

There are several sources for it... With a little research, you could find that ancient absinthe is an established phenomenon. There is a difference between it and modern absinthe, mainly in the preparation. I've found numerous references to ancient absinthe in several different texts, but its difficult to put the information found in them on this site without potentially plagiarizing. The evidence suggests strongly that absinthe predates the 1790s and some mention needs to be made of that.

It might serve to do the article justice if there was less of a singular focus on modern absinthe and a more generalized focus on absinthe. Perhaps add a section to make clear the delineation between the pre-1790 absinthes, the little that's known, and the post-Val de Travers, 1794 absinthes that most people are so familiar with now. --Jsliwinski 21:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The source you've cited so far does not seem to support the existence of absinthe in ancient cultures, but rather the medical use of wormwood. A mention of earlier medicinal uses in the history section might be a good idea, but calling those uses absinthe would be misleading -- unless other, reliable sources are saying something different.

You should be able to add information from any source without plagiarism. You can paraphrase, or simply quote a sentence or two with attribution. If this is a problem for some reason, and the sources are online, you could post the link here instead. —Celithemis 22:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the discussion here is good... The term absinthe does appear before the use in the Val de Travers contexts that are commonly cited. That is the reason that there is a contextual difference drawn between "modern absinthe", which is a term that I have carried over from one text, which I'll locate when I'm in front of it, and "ancient absinthe."

It is also worth noting that the original Val de Travers method of production of absinthe is not the only method of production, which even further clouds the waters. While wormwood is considered a key ingredient, a myriad of herbal combinations can be found in absinthe. Unless we can be specific about which herbal combinations delineate absinthe from other wormwood-based spirits, it gets foggy. --Jsliwinski 03:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I have asked for citations on Jsliwinski's user page. At the moment, I see what he is doing as completely unjustified: no citations whatsoever. I am loath to call this vandalism at this stage, but I need 1/2 citations to help me to maintain this stance. Alanmoss 21:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Based on the sourced text I believe my original comments were accurate. This article is about the distilled beverage based around the Val de Travers recipe using anise and grande wormwood (among other things). While there are other drinks that use wormwood that doesn't make them "absinthe" (nor does it make Val de travers "modern absinthe") and are beyond the scope of this article. The article does try to distinguish what absinthe is in a couple sections. If there is enough information about these older wormwood based drinks a new page about them is a good idea, in the same sense that vermouth (a drink that can use wormwood) has its own page and is not dubbed "absinthe wine". -- Ari 22:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

A quick add, it is a reasonably common mistake to assume older products labeled "absinthe" (or some variation) have a connection to absinthe as the producers of it decided to give it the same name as wormwood (something that came back to bite them later), so it may be worth a mention in the article or archive. -- Ari 22:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying... I'm attempting to include more of the back story behind the origins of the Val de Travers phenomenon. Presently, it can not be stated with certainty that Val de Travers is the genesis of absinthe because of the previous incarnations that predate its introduction in Switzerland. Its likely that what developed in Val de Travers is an improvement upon a centuries old phenomenon. There is no intent to vandalize the article, rather, I'm attempting to improve the historical development that dates back centuries. I sincerely believe that including a discussion of how absinthe as it exists now being traceable back centuries does justice to improving the historical context of the phenomenon. Perhaps adding a section discussing this might be in order then since there is a disagreement about the placement of such information ? I make this judgment call based on the fact that most books regarding absinthe mention the ancient forms of absinthe. --Jsliwinski 03:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to note that there is a lot of information that isn't cited in this article that probably should be. I've attempted to cite when others disagree with the verifiability of information presented. If the intent was to vandalize, citations certainly wouldn't be produced. Unfortunately, producing some citations may be problematic since I (no longer) and many consumers of the information here may not have access to sources where those articles could be found (ie - scholarly journals, etc.). --Jsliwinski 03:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

While the term absinthe is used in some ancient texts, it is just a generic term for wormwood which has possible roots in both a different herb and a description of its bitter 'undrinkable' taste (when undistilled). So the old use of the word may not have any connection with the absinthe on this page. Meaning there is no need to describe this absinthe as "modern" if there was really no set "ancient" drink or a connection to it.

The article describes absinthe a couple times, "is a distilled, highly alcoholic, anise-flavored spirit derived from herbs including the flowers and leaves of the medicinal plant Artemisia absinthium" "The main herbs used are grande wormwood, florence fennel and green anise, often called the 'holy trinity'." Distilled wormwood and anise are very important, and some argue that it isn't absinthe without fennel in the mix as well. So while wormwood was used, I don't know of any evidence linking those drinks to absinthe.

While I think wormwood drinks throughout history is beyond the scope of this article, if enough information exists it would make a good new page listed as a "see also" or an expansion from the absinthe page.

I am curious to see the text you are refering too if you can find it, as well as what isn't cited in the article (depending on where the information is we may be able to scare up people who have seen it, or have access to it). -- Ari 04:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The term "modern absinthe" and "ancient absinthe" are both directly from Conrad's "Absinthe: History in a Bottle" (ancient - page 85, modern - page 87). In fact, Conrad states in the text "It is now certain that the two Henriod sisters had been making absinthe long before Dr. Ordinaire's arrival in the Val de Travers. And, of course, the use of absinthe elixir and absinthinated wine goes back thousands of years. But to give him his due, Ordinaire most certainly was one of the first to promote La Fee Verte." This is located on page 88 if you have access to the text. To me, this is a strong indication that the phenomenon is a continuation of a much older phenomenon and that the 1794 date is when Ordinaire and the Henriod sisters became known, for a lack of a better term, and suggests that, aside from these individuals, the production of absinthe was probably being produced clandestinely on farms and in homes, much the same way that it was being produced illegally in Switzerland up till 1995.

Conrad cites a myriad of sources at the end of his text, the one I have access to now, unfortunately, I don't speak French and could not directly consult most of them. There are several English texts, but most appear to be discussions of famous, or infamous, individuals related to absinthe.

Additionally, I'd like to add that saying absinthe must be "anise-flavored" might be overly specific as well, just from personal observation with a myriad of distillations. I've found several, including one from the Val de Travers that, if it is anise-flavored, is barely detectable. On the other hand, I've found others that are anise packed. Just an aside though. --Jsliwinski 06:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned I think it has a lot to do with the use of the word "absinthe" and not a solid connection to Absinthe. The oldest solid evidence of Absinthe I've seen is from the 1790s. It could easily go back further and may have connections to more ancient uses but nothing is solid enough to put it in the article at this time. In the same sense that a number of countries have their own variation of a distilled anise flavored drink which could all have connections but it would need more research to add it to the articles.

I assume over the last almost 100 years and a ban the personal recipes have changed a bit, as well as experimentation, but the majority of absinthe including traditional pre-ban absinthe both contains anise and has a predominate anise flavor (although it's often not nearly as strong as other anise flavored beverages). A good example is a recent small run based on the 1794/1797 recipe which has a heavy wormwood flavor but still contains that noticeable anise taste. -- Ari 07:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Which is why the addition to the article states that the evidence only "suggests" that absinthe predates the 1790s. It was an effort to include pertinent information without saying, "Yes, absolutely, there is a connection." I worded it carefully to suggest what is indeed the case - there is evidence that supports that the 1790s is probably not the genesis of absinthe and there is evidence that it probably predates the 1790s.

I only mentioned the anise-flavored thing because I've found several that lack that anise flavoring... You can detect the other herbal content much more readily that you could the anise.--Jsliwinski 17:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Using the adjective "modern" implies that concrete evidence confirms that "yes, absolutely, there is a connection." If you're going to use it then you should have a section devoted to "ancient" absinthe, where a specific definition is given. A specific definition would not be just any drink containing wormwood, since "absinthe", being the main ingredient, was a generic name or adjective sometimes given to teas, tinctures, fermented beverages, etc. containing it. And of course such a definition would have to have some concrete evidence to support it. Otherwise, the descriptor "modern" should be done away with, as well as any assertion that absinthe was made by ancient cultures. Instead there could be a section that mentions various ancient drinks that were referred to as absinthe, due to their wormwood content, and how they're different from the absinthe that this entry is about. However, that might be better to have in the entry on wormwood instead, as this entry is specifically about a distilled spirit.-- Peridotmetal 22:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ideally, the article should have a section with a discussion of the ancient predecessors of what now exists of absinthe to give a historical timeline. That was in the works, but clearly the objections of one to its inclusion can clearly stop that from happening. To suddenly say that it appeared in the 1790s runs counter to what is known, although it is little. And to remove the "assertion", as you mistakenly call it, that absinthe was made by ancient cultures is, again, counter to maintaining historically accurate timeline of its development. It would be like saying that the Wright Brothers developed the flying machine out of thin air despite the fact that there is a historical record, albeit fuzzy, of the flying machine being a phenomenon developed over time. --Jsliwinski 00:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree to the extent that ancient medicinal uses of wormwood seem like a useful bit of context, worth mentioning in the history section, even if the connection between it and Dr. Ordinaire's absinthe is hazy. The "Absinthism" scientific paper does this, and I don't see why this article shouldn't. I'm not convinced, though, that the term "ancient absinthe" for things like wormwood leaves in wine is widely accepted. A Google Scholar search for the phrase turns up only one hit, which turns out to be irrelevant -- a mention of "ancient absinthe stains" or something like that. Some websites about absinthe do use it (although many of the plain-Google hits are about an Everquest item), and you cited a book that does, but it's equally clear that other sources discuss the use of wormwood in ancient cultures without adopting this usage.

Note, though, that we could mention the use of the term "ancient absinthe" without actually adopting that terminology for the article. "Some writers call this ancient absinthe." If we did that as a compromise then maybe we could get down to the factual disagreements, which don't seem irreconcilable. (Isn't everyone more or less agreeing that the exact date of invention of what's now known as absinthe is unknown, for example? The article already referred to Dr. Ordinaire's invention of it as a popular legend.)

My biggest concern about the current state of the article is that because "ancient absinthe" isn't defined, readers are left to imagine the ancient Greeks or Egyptians distilling some equivalent to Pernod Fils (in the alembics that they didn't have). Even with a failed verification tag, that's pretty misleading. As a temporary measure, how about some wording like:

The medical use of wormwood dates back to ancient Egypt and is mentioned in the Ebers Papyrus, circa 1550 BCE. Wormwood extracts and wine-soaked wormwood leaves were used as remedies by the ancient Greeks.[cite absinthism paper] Some sources refer to this as "ancient absinthe".[cite the book] The first clear evidence of absinthe in the modern sense of a distilled spirit, however, dates to the 18th century. According to popular legend....[etc.]

Incidentally, Jsliwinski mentioned the difficulty of getting access to scholarly journals. I have access to JSTOR and a few others and would be happy to look stuff up as needed, if you can point me in the right direction. (As a side note, many public library systems offer surprisingly good database access through their websites if you have a card.) —Celithemis 01:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the addition. I would still disagree with the term "ancient absinthe" even with the Book caveat. Calling wine "ancient brandy" is probably more valid. As mentioned Conrad falls into the mistake of treating the general term for the plant as the product. While what he calls "ancient absinthe" was probably precursors to Absinthe, they lacked a number of things that make Absinthe Absinthe, based on the page definition and most Absinthe connoisseurs. In a similar way wine lacks an important thing that makes Brandy Brandy. Since Absinthe started out as a medicinal tonic before being comercialized and contained multiple herbs I wouldn't doubt its real ancient history is multi-pronged as each one of those herbs has its own history, wormwood is just focused on because A) it is what became famous and B) it is where they got the name from. To find specifically ancient Absinthe we would need to find the first time these herbs were brought together in a tonic and the first time they were distilled together. Conrad's book points to this as being no earlier than the 16th century when it notes evidence of wine and wormwood being distilled together (something very important for Absinthe (distillation that is)). -- Ari 02:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to the proposed compromise on the wording given by Celithemis. I believe it encompasses the intent of my original edit with a wording that would be more accepted by others in the discussion. --Jsliwinski 05:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Jsliwinski, I believe we probably agree in regards to inclusion of historical uses of wormwood that would have paved the way for absinthe. Like the Wright brothers in your metaphor. My disagreement is with the wording. When I say that we should remove the suggestion (I agree, calling it "assertion" was incorrect and sloppy) that absinthe was made by ancient cultures I do not mean that we should exclude information on wormwood uses that lead to absinthe. I mean that we should not call these uses absinthe. From what I can find, there isn't evidence to support the idea that there was any particular definition of absinthe (other than the herb itself) before the spirit to which we are referring was created. When I suggested that information on pre-absinthe uses for wormwood might go better in the wormwood article I merely meant for the sake of keeping the absinthe entry uncluttered. If everyone agrees that it would be useful, then by all means include it. -- Peridotmetal 04:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Peridotmetal, well put in my opinion. Would you agree to the compromise that was proposed as by Celithemis as solution ? Any expansion of the discussion of ancient uses could then be placed in another article to remove the clutter without sacrificing the historical context of absinthe . I'd have no problem with those two suggestions. It would allow for the inclusion of relevant information here without clutter and expands, when the opportunity arrives, the existing wormwood article (if not already done). --Jsliwinski 05:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Celithemis's solution is fine. A section on pre-absinthe uses of wormwood that lead to the creation of absinthe would enrich the article. However, I do agree with Ari that the mention of "ancient absinthe" is based on too little, even with the book caveat. The author's work is worth citing when there's something substantial and clear in it. An example of his use of confusing and misleading nomenclature is not worth citing, as it only serves to confuse and mislead further. I think the proposed section addition can really enrich the article. -- Peridotmetal 22:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Peridot. Although there might be a connection we don't know what or how solid it is, so saying 200 year old absinthe is "modern" suggests there is a solid connection to ancient absinthe. (it would be similar to calling brandy "modern wine", and grape juice "ancient wine" while they have an obvious connection, grape juice, wine and brandy are separate drinks.) It can also cause some confusion as most use the term "modern absinthe" to refer to post-ban products, especially 1990s and onward. -- Ari 23:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Added some of the discussed text. -- Ari 06:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

External links revisited

Anonymous user from Comcast: I assure you I have no pre-existing bias for or against anyone in the absinthe business. My interest in absinthe is purely as a historical and scientific subject. Before this kerfuffle over external links started I had never heard of absinthebuyersguide.com and had no more than glanced at feeverte.net. In fact, if you'd asked me then, I would have had trouble naming a single modern absinthe manufacturer. My opposition to including the absinthebuyersguide.com link is based purely on looking at it in light of Wikipedia's guideline on external links and the overall goal of building an encyclopedia.

When I look at the feeverte buyer's guide, I see detailed reviews, many of which seem to be user-submitted. When I look at absinthebuyersguide.com's buyer's guide, I see some very basic, minimal information about each brand and a prominent "click here" link that always seems to go to a dealer's home page. One is an actual buyer's guide; the other is more like a shell that might someday contain a buyer's guide. A *pretty* shell, to be sure -- it beats the other sites on design in my opinion -- but that doesn't make it a valuable external link for this Wikipedia article.

If you still want to pursue your claim of bias, then I suggest you use the dispute resolution process to get opinions from uninvolved editors. Reinserting the link over and over is not going to get you what you want. —Celithemis 01:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree this is getting ridiculous, after many requests to talk about this before editing, to stop the possible personal attacks and to support their claims and accusations people in support of ABG continue to edit the page instead. I would be perfectly happy if they took it to dispute resolution instead of continually disrupting the page. -- Ari 01:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

They've done both. The link has been added again with a note that mediation has been initiated and a warning not to revert. I'll go ahead and throw my $.02 in and say that I don't see anything useful about ABG that is not already handled by FVBG. Especially since FVBG has user-submitted reviews instead of owner-submitted ones. The scoring system is broken down into categories with numerical values. The score for each absinthe is an average of the total scores from all the users. ABG does not have such detailed reviews. In fact, it doesn't even have reviews at all. It only lists a large number of brands and links to one vendor "for more information."

In its absinthe listings ABG has brands that, by the definition stated in this article, are not absinthe. In the Specialty listing there are a number of anise-free brands. Also, King of Spirits and Sebor are not even distilled, yet are listed. ABG makes no effort to show how these brands are not absinthe, unlike FVBG which does. That's a good reason why it should not be linked on this page. Its FAQ is generally agreeable but near the end it says this: "The alcohol produces a sedative effect in absinthe drinkers while the thujone is reported to cause hallucinations (both visual and auditory) as well as excitation." Hallucinations? That is blatant disinformation. In addition, the history section doesn't have anything of note that isn't already linked from this article.

As for the anonymous ABG linker's concerns about Oxy's sites: ABG only lists brands that Alandia sells. Oxy only sells absinthes from five distilleries (eight total absinthes) on his commercial sites but FVBG has user-submitted reviews for a tremendous number of brands. -- Peridotmetal 16:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Unfortunately so far they have decided not to tell anyone that is involved where the mediation is. For those that want to know, Absinthe link mediation cabal case. -- Ari 16:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The accusations listed there are insane conspiracy theories and easily debunked by looking at all of the sites involved. His arguments don't hold any water. It's interesting that one of his first assertions is that any response to his arguments should be seen as the first alarm that everyone else is in a conspiracy against him. Can anyone respond in the mediation? I'm not listed as a party involved so I don't know if it's appropriate. -- Peridotmetal 17:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I was considering adding a rebuttal/reply but didn't want to turn it into this talk page debate again before a mediator even had a chance to look. A note to the IP/owl2hagrid the Cabal is an informal not formal mediation department. -- Ari 03:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I stumbled here through the medcab request. Would simply linking to dmoz be an acceptable solution? {{dmoz|Recreation/Food/Drink/Liquor/Absinthe/|Absinthe}} -shotwell 23:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Many of the links at dmoz are full of misinformation and discredited studies. Links to sensationalism and exaggeration actively work against the article. There are good sites there too, but I think it's unreasonable to link to a random collection of sites from an encyclopedic article and expect people to figure out what is accurate and what is not. What's at issue here is linking only to sites that provide unique, in-depth, and accurate info. ABG does not meet that criteria. -- Peridotmetal 18:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. While it's an interesting idea it seems to just be shifting the issue off site. Although I still have major issues with including ABG as it is now, with ABG currently removing the inaccuracies I've found so far, it's higher on the list than a couple of the sites at DMOZ. -- Ari 19:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. It was just a small suggestion and I'm not terribly concerned. I only suggested it because 1.) All of the external links in this article can be found at dmoz, and 2.) The recent changes to WP:EL suggest that linking to dmoz might be preferable in some instances. shotwell 22:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that there are many instances where that would work, but absinthe is somewhat unusual because the majority of the info you can find on the internet is just plain wrong. The legend of absinthe has given rise to all nature of grand and terrifying claims, none of which are true. -- Peridotmetal 23:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone has now reverted, removing the ABG link before mediation has been completed. Anyone know what's up? -- Peridotmetal 03:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a roadrunner IP, not sure. probably a different IP for one of the IPs that has been reverting it. It would be nice if the page could stay a stable one way or the other until a mediator has a crack at it. -- Ari 03:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hasn't the ABG had long enough? There doesn't seem to be any mediators on their way, and he obviously did this exactly for this situation to get the link in there for the Christmas shopping season because Google favors wiki linked pages above others. Shouldn't his site be removed unless a mediator comes in to propose a solution?

Nobody has done anything with this for over a week. I've never removed the link before and I don't have feelings about it one way or the other, so I'm removing it for now; if the mediation case is decided the other way, it can be replaced. Alleged spammers do not get to have their way simply by starting a mediation request. Kafziel ^Talk 18:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

However, the fee verte description could be more factual sounding and less like an advert. The changes made by the spammer to this ext link seem very fair. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.16.41.151 (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

I agree it was a distinct improvement, and have tinkered a bit with the other link descriptions as well. (As an aside, I think it's more constructive to avoid labelling anyone a spammer and simply focus on the merit of the links in question.) —Celithemis 23:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV section

Quoting: Besides being unpleasant to drink and a pale impression of authentic distilled absinthe

This section is way too POv-oriented, in my opinion. It either needs to be changed or sourced. (|-- UlTiMuS 21:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What would you propose as a change? Absinthe kits which have the buyer soak packets of herbs in vodka or everclear are unpleasant to drink because it leaches all the horrible flavors into the alcohol including the extremely bitter chemicals in grand wormwood and is a pale impression of distilled absinthe because of that. Beyond that it's normally ground up low quality herbs. One quick source WS FAQ -- Ari 22:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I can see how the wording can giving a POV impression although what it actually states is true. If "gin kits" were being sold where the buyer soaks juniper in vodka to make "gin" I don't think a "gin kits" section in the gin article would be all that different. The same with steeping grain and charcoal in vodka to make whiskey. Or adding agave to vodka and calling it tequila. The wording could stand to be cleaned up a little bit to be more academic but the idea should stay. -- Peridotmetal 00:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I made my own Southern Comfort once. It wouldn't be POV to say it was "unpleasant to drink"; it would be a simple fact. Kafziel ^Talk 01:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I should clarify that what I specifically think sounds POV is the phrase "a pale impression." Absinthe made from kits certainly is a pale impression of real absinthe but the wording seems conversational and hostile. It might be more appropriate to say something along the lines of, "Besides being extremely bitter and having little in common with the flavour profile of authentic, distilled absinthe..." -- Peridotmetal 03:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I am sure its a fact that your Southern Comfort was unpleasant, but you couldn't put that on Wikipedia without a source. Same here.137.138.46.155 11:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I reduced some POV words and added a source. Although I'm not sure the source is needed. -- Ari 06:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Absinthe in Australia

I made a correction to the historical legal status of Absinthe in Australia. Absinthe was never illegal, as wormwood was only a restricted (not a prohibited) herb under Food Standard 1.4.4. The movement in December 2000 was to shift it from restricted to prohibited - which was averted. The need for an import permit also has nothing to do with "Absinthe" per se, but because "oil of wormwood" is a restricted import under Schedule 8 of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations. Jonathan carfax 02:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You are going to need a source to claim such an item. 24.16.41.151 01:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Legislative sources are referenced - Customs law dates back to 1956. Food Standard law has artemisia species listed under restricted herbs where it has always been. I have included an explanatory report by FSANZ explaining their stuff up. Jonathan carfax 02:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I feel sure that the latest addition is not completely correct: "Absinthe containing wormwood cannot be sent through the Australian postal system, nor is not permitted in passengers luggage on arrival in Australia, even in small quantities for personal use." Czeech Absinth has been on sale in Australia Duty Free for some time, and passengers are allowed to buy from Duty Free as they enter the country. Could the poster check the situation as far as Duty Free see it? Alanmoss 06:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that "Absinthe containing wormwood" is redundant, and it suggests that somewhere there's absinthe that doesn't contain wormwood, which is of course not true. Peridotmetal 07:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

While I didn't put that entry in, the postal service thing would be true from an international postage perspective unless one has the import permit (from personal experience) - mail within the country would be permissible. Customs is tricky - the import permit would legally still be required for personal importation through customs into Australia, though I don't know how well that is enforced - but this is contrasted to the correct observation that it is available in international duty free. Jonathan carfax 04:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Maceration?

As I understand the terms, steeping with a cold liquid is a maceration, and steeping with a warm or hot liquid is an infusion. And, again as I understand it, both the first and the coloring ‘macerations’ are done with a hot (or at least warm) liquid. So shouldn’t they be referred to as ‘infusions’ not ‘macerations’? Scaper8 23:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That's simply not correct. Maceration (like steeping) can be done at any temperature. Kafziel ^Talk 14:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake.Scaper8 19:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Louched Lounge

I am removing the link to Louched Lounge again, as it is not an acceptable use of the External links section. The user who added the link, User:Louched Lounge has now been blocked indefinitely; the IP address that re-inserted it is obviously the same user circumventing the block. If that persists, the associated IP addresses may be blocked and the site blacklisted from Wikipedia.

A link can be spam even if the site it links to is not directly for profit. At the very least, it is inappropriate. According to the External links guideline, forums should not be linked to from articles. Even if a forum is neutral, free for all users, popular, and well established, Wikipedia is not a collection of external links.

With all due respect to Ari X, in light of our recent stance on other sites, we need to apply the rules evenly across the board. Kafziel ^Talk 22:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to concede this (given the louched lounge site is nothing but a forum), at least as an External Reference.

On the other hand, I do think it is interesting *in se* to see that absinthe seems to have spawned quite a few forums dedicated to it, and also interesting to note that the forums are firmly in two camps: one camp apparently thinking of absinthe merely as something to get drunk on and with possible psychoactive effects, invariably (and wrongly) attributed to thujone, and another camp populated by drinkers mainly caring for absinthe as a tasty drink. Even in the latter category, the style of the different forums (and noting what the owners are trying to achieve) is also interesting.

Perhaps this would be better resolved by writing a section about the spread of absinthe forums, and giving some examples (with links as references, not external links)? I do think the existence (and history) of the forums is an interesting fact worthy of being reported in its own right.

Alexis Cousein 84.193.208.110 01:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There are forums for everything on the internet. We don't have a section in the article about plumbing to talk about all the forums dedicated to plumbing. That's not the purpose of Wikipedia, and the number of absinthe forums is no more significant than the number of plumbing forums. Kafziel ^Talk 19:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There's quite a difference: if the history and spawning of plumbing forums would indeed have influenced the recent history of plumbing, I think it *would* be entirely justified to talk about plumbing forums in an article about plumbing, but such a thing has, at least to my knowledge, not happened. I wasn't advocating simply listing forums as in the catalogue of ships in the Ilias, but showing exactly why they spawned, what the differences were, and how they reacted to the recent legalisation of absinthe in the largest part of the world and indeed were almost instrumental in creating a market for some of the higher quality commercial brands available now. Alexis Cousein 72.254.31.92 04:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I am beginning to think that this is a relevant issue for another reason too. The two largest forums (numerically) are both owned by people who have other decidedly commercial interests in absinthe. Leaving aside Oxy which has been discussed already, the biggest MySpace group (1800+ members) now seems to be controlled/run by an absinthe supplier. Knowing that this was going to happen, and wearing my brand hat, I set up another absinthe group on MySpace (only 200 members but fairly vociferous ones!). My point is that ownership of the means of communication seems to be a much bigger factor in this business than in any other drinks market, and, as far as I know, much bigger than in the plumbing business! I don't know that I am happy with that, and anyway this is not judgemental in any way: it is, however, a very interesting and increasingly relevant fact. Alanmoss 11:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This might do well as part of an expansion page dealing with only modern 'revival' absinthe and its history. Currently the rather long article stops at around legalization and a lot has happened since then. -- Ari 05:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

So, Ari, how would we go about soing such a page (and linking it to this one)? -- Alexis 80.201.102.139 12:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

An easy way to make a new page is to make a red link, like Modern absinthe or whatever you want the title to be, then click on it, and you have the edit box for the new page. A modern absinthe page would be added into the current page, probably as "Main article: modern absinthe" in its section. -- Ari 16:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

La Fée Absinthe

Talking about spam, what about stuff that is clearly not matter for Wikipedia? There appears to actually be a whole page for La Fée Absinthe, clearly simply listing one particular brand of absinthe with a message fashioned after statements from the distributor, with little content and direct links to the commercial site. It even manages to score highly on Google searches for absinthe and Wikipedia...

How are pollutions of the Wikipedia space on separate pages to be handled? Who moderates pages like that?

Alexis Cousein 72.254.31.92 04:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've done some editing, removing marketing words, on that page but it needs help. There are other brand/company pages on wikipedia and it was suggested brands should be added just like any other alcoholic beverage. A good idea but so far the only brands added are those who an editor work/ed for. It would be nice if a LaFee/BBH history could be added as well as other companies. -- Ari 05:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

AG.de

This website has been dropped from this absinthe wiki page in the past. There is not any new information there that isn't in the other links. At best it is redundant, at worst it is spam.24.16.25.69 18:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to go through it and check although the english section does seem quite small compared to other listed sites. It should be noted ag.de is not the same as the absintheguide mentioned previously on this talk page. -- Ari 18:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Absinthe Effects section

The Absinthe effects section is full of contradictions. It states absinthe has hallucinogen effects and then it states that it doesn't. Youlookadopted 00:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The section says that it was thought to be hallucinogenic but isn't. Can you post the sections you see as unclear or contradictory? -- Ari 00:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Santonin

"There is a small number of people that feel that santonin (another chemical that is believed to be in absinthe), not the thujone is to blame for the supposed effects, although there is no evidence to support this."

Then why is this in the article? There needs to be a source for this. The main article on santonin says that it is in absinthe (not that it's believed to be in it) but it also gives no source. Can anyone explain this? A "small number of people" believing something is not sufficient for it to be in the article. Peridotmetal 20:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It probably can be removed. I know of no solid test showing santonin in absinthe or in what amounts. The main articles I've read about it are from a professor suggesting it is Santonin in absinthe and not thujone (as Arnold claims) that made Van Gogh paint more to the yellow side and/or go crazy. Unsourced of course. -- Ari 20:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing it. If anyone has a source it can be put back in. Peridotmetal 20:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Absinthe in Star Trek

this comment was posted on the absinthe in popular culture talk page, but it dosn't look like it got much notice so i'm putting it here too.

I found an article on absinthe that says that Romulan Ale (from Star Trek) is based on absinthe:

“You have Romulan ale!” he shouted.
“S’cuse me?” I replied.
“In Star Trek, the Romulans drink a green liquor that’s illegal everywhere else in the galaxy. It’s based on absinthe.”

It is from this article: [1].

Every time I’ve seen it on the show it’s been blue, not green, as quoted in the article, but if someone can find a more reliable source to verify this, I think it would make a good addition.Scaper8 19:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

does anyone know any thing about this?

First of all, the article is written by someone who demonstrates absolute ignorance about absinthe in almost every way. It's full of misinformation contradicted by this absinthe article and its sources. Second, the suggestion that Romulan Ale is based on absinthe doesn't appear to come from any expert on absinthe or scholar of Star Trek. It comes from a friend of the author. This is pure conjecture. Third, ale is a fermented beverage, not a distilled one like absinthe. Fourth, as you point out yourself, Romulan Ale is blue, not green. If there were some sort of documentation of a creator of the show saying the idea of Romulan Ale was inspired by absinthe it might be okay to put it on the absinthe in popular culture page, although even that is dubious since the final concept is drastically different from absinthe. Peridotmetal 23:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

US Customs

From what I understand Customs doesn't make any laws itself but enforces those made by other organizations. In which case regulations that don't match regulation from the FDA would be contrary to what they are supposed to be enforcing. -- Ari 19:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Absinthe in cocktails

While preparation listed on the main page is the most common, absinthe is currently and historically used in a number of cocktails. The Wikiproject mixed Drinks has a category for 'Cocktails with absinthe,' see here. Wikibook Bartending also has a Glossary of cocktails.

Absinthe Grades

The grades historically given to absinthe weren't standards but loosely defined ratings often used to describe recipes in manuals. The highest grade used the best part of the distillate, was a high proof and when colored was always done naturally. The lowest grade used the 'phlegms' of the distillate, was generally a lower proof, could be colored artificially and may not use fennel among other ingredients common in higher grades.

AbsintheBuyersGuide link

Based on wikipedia guidelines and editor consensus the Absinthebuyersguide link is not to be included in the external links section of the article. Wikipedia is not a collection of links and has specific guidelines for the external link section.

It was argued by those in favor of the Absinthe Buyers Guide link that the current external links are biased by being either owned by the same person or part of the same group of people and the section is generally edited by people of the same group (but who aren't owners). The Absinthe Buyers Guide should also be included out of fairness and based on the resource is provides. Those against this pointed out that although the sites are owned by the same individual they provide new information, don't remove information about other vendors and provide minimal advertising. On the other hand the Absinthe Buyers Guide provides no actual guide only pictures and a link to a single vendor, nor does it list products exclusive to other vendors and provides no new information. If the guide changes in the future to match wikipedia guidelines it will be reconsidered.

A mediation cabal case was opened up dealing with this but was closed due to inactivity.

'ancient' absinthe

Wormwood has been used for thousands of years in drinks and recipes and has a history all its own. This page is focused on the product first commercialized in the late 18th, early 19th century produced by distilling Grand wormwood, anise and fennel. It can be confusing when looking at old text because "absinthe" means "wormwood" and thus it's sometimes hard to tell if they are talking about wormwood or a drink similar to Absinthe.

Santonin

While there are a few people that believe santonin is to blame for absinthe's supposed effects there appear to be little to no studies comparing it's effects and lowest active dose to absinthe and it remains conjecture.

Absinthe in Australia

Absinthe was never illegal in Australia, only restricted because it contains wormwood. An import permit is required to receive absinthe by international mail.

Absinthe in Star Trek

While at least one article claims Romulan Ale is based off absinthe there is no source for this and the pictures of ale as a clear glowing blue drink seems to contradict this.

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 [2] 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.wiki.x.io/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)