Yom Kippur

Archives
July 2003 – February 2007 March 2007 – August 2007 September 2007 – February 2008

To-do

The goal of the To-do list is to get the absinthe section looking like sections on other liquors, with not only a history but neutral articles on significant companies as well.

Other possible companies to add to the list, Francois Guy, Doubs, Xenta.

What? Is there any reason why we should include company pages on this page?? If we are going to include those listed, we are going to have to include ALL companies such as Hill's etc. This seems crazy.24.17.253.57 (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Not on this page but for the companies or products significant to have their own page. The to do list is a generic list of anything absinthe related and is gathered here just to keep things in an organized spot. -- Ari (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Understood. However, who decides that a product or company is significant enough? Slippery slope! Who exactly proposed this company list? I did not find it in the talk archives? I assume it was someone who does not have involvement with one of the companies that happens to be listed there206.188.61.189 (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC).

I think company ages are a good idea. I don’t think it needs much policing. As long as the material is factual I think it is ok. It would be a good way to keep proprietors off this page for the most part. That way they can obsess over their own page instead of this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightcafe1 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

So the only way to do it would be to allow ANY absinthe distillery to have a page and a link from the main absinthe page. Then where does it end? Would it be allowed for online absinthe retail shops? Come on now. This is obviously something that was come up with by someone with a motive. This Alanmoss has a vested interest.24.17.253.57 (talk) 03:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree a list isn't a great idea. For the most part the article should be written and when brands come up in recent history they should be linked to. Individual brand pages will stand or fall on wikipedia standards (in other words if nothing can be written about a brand beyond advertising it will eventually be trashed. However it's important to start treating absinthe like what it is, a liquor with an interesting past and thus follow a similar style as other liquors. -- Ari (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that brand pages can and should be attempted to be put up on Wikipedia and will stand or fail by themselves. However, why should they be associated in any way with the main absinthe page? Perhaps I am missing something?206.188.56.115 (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I just put it back. Perhaps we should move it to the bottom so it can become a laundry list? All the other alcohol sites have it? It seems only appropriate as we mature into one of them that our wikipedia site starts to look like theirs? no? -Night cafe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.49.154.166 (talk) 08:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok then. I just added several "brands" of absinthe to the main page. Now, who is to decide which ones deserve to stay, and which go? Enjoy. 206.188.56.115 (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. For example, I see nothing wrong with linking to a hills page (even though many have a low opinion of their product) when Hills is mentioned in the modern revival. However it's important to remember what Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not, thus the giant list should be removed. Also, please don't edit the article to make a point that could easily be made here. -- Ari (talk) 02:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You may be right about my missing your point. Can you please re-explain to me why the above to do list includes "significant" companies that are to be included in the absinthe page? I would like to know who is deciding what a "significant" company is, and what their criteria are. It seems to me that there are only two fair ways to do this.

1. Let any and all companies making absinthe be included.

2. Do not include any companies not directly mentioned in the article.

Regarding editing the article to make a point. I made my point here, but it wasn't coming across clearly. So I dropped my point and followed the line made by Night Cafe. This made it very clear how much of a bad idea it was, and quickly stopped two companies from getting unfair free promotion from the article. 206.188.62.99 (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I possibly wasn't clear, the to-do list isn't for stuff to be added to the absinthe page but a general absinthe to-do list. It's a list of companies that could have their own page on wikipedia (hence the red links, click on them and it will bring up a blank page to add content to). Then each of those pages will stand or fall based on how much information can be found of them. -- Ari (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I see now. That makes a lot more sense. Sorry for not understanding that part of the conversation. So, you mean that any absinthe producer can, and should, be put onto the "to-do" list. Then when something has been put onto wikipedia about that company, it will either stand or fall based on wikipedia's standards. Is that correct?206.188.53.193 (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Guys. I will go with the consensus here but I want to go on record thinking that it might be good to have links to these pages on the absinthe page. If you go to Cognac for example you will find a brands section with a laundry list of notable brands. It seems usual to put it at the bottom of the page. It seems like a good way for companies producing the product to have to explain their offering in the context of the article. I see no reason not to have it? Its not a big deal though. Nightcafe1 (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Heavy Metal Spiking

I remember reading that old-school Absinthe producers would add heavy metals to the drink because they thought it would make it more green. But doing a find on the Absinthe pages reveals no such mention... Anyone know if this was perchance pure rumor or had any substantiation? Thanks for any info! --Xris0 (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

For some reason that appears to have vanished from the article in its shambled state. Yes unscrupulous producers took advantage of the popularity and added metals and other chemicals to artificially create the green color and enhance the louche. -- Ari (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wilde's evidence

It seems the Wilde absinthe story is a myth: http://www.oxygenee.com/absinthe-effect/secondaries.html Siúnrá (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

New Orleans

In the French Quarter of N.O. is the 'Original Old Absinthe House' which dates to 1806. The stuff cannot be obtained there because of the government ban but the place has historical importance for the tourist industry. Musicwriter (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The government ban is been semi lifted so eventually it should be possible to drink absinthe at the old absinthe house. I agree it does have historical importance, I just don't know enough about it to add it myself -- Ari (talk) 04:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ari and Music Writer. Knowing a bit about the old absinthe house I decided to add it into the history section along with a few other nuggets I picked up along the way. Let me know what you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightcafe1 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Complete edit

Hello guys. I would like to propose a complete edit of this page. Since I did it last time I would volunteer to do it again. I think there should be several sub pages following the example of the absinthe in popular culture page (which I wrote originally). I simply think this page has become too long and mucky. The heading which should simply define the green nectar now includes pieces of history and a lot of marketing plugs. I would not change the content but reorder it to read like an encyclopedia page instead of a jumbled mess of marketing interests.

We are all clearly passionate about different portions of the industry and history but I think we need a little discipline. The wine page for example is much clearer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightcafe1 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to call section 8 and subsection 8.1 to the attention of any potential editors. Further, there is a disconnect between information presented in that section and information present in the article page for thujone. Deshelm (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I have read these articles both from start to finish and I do not see any disconnect? Could you be more specific? The only thing I could see adding to the Absinthe page is a section on the accelerated firing of neurons and using that as a possible explanation for the secondary effects? I am not a scientist... Nightcafe1 (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Consolidate paragraphs?

"International consumption" and "Historical" contain a lot of the same information. I'd have shifted it around a bit, but the above poster seems interested in rewriting the whole thing and knows more than I, so welcome to it. :) Mordant Kitten (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

New page to add to External Links section

Hi,

I noticed that the article might receive additional improvement if it contained some information (or resources) that offer user generated reviews or content such as blogs or product reviews.

The URL http://www.absinthesugar.com/absinthe-reviews-absinthe-brands/ has some good product reviews, and the website also has a start-up blog for feedback: http://www.absinthesugar.com/?page=1

I've found this to be a good resource, and has a stylish design, and I thought it would make a good addition to the external links section.

What do you think? I wanted to get feedback before the link was added.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.82.250.2 (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The article already has "resources that offer user generated reviews or content such as blogs or product reviews." Fee Verte and Wormwood Society are far more extensive than Absinthe Sugar and have huge review sections with a large number of user-generated reviews that conform to very structured rating systems. They also have a lot of historical and scientific content and WS has some user-generated content. Also, Absinthe Sugar suggests that browsers shop at www.originalabsinthe.com which sells products that do not meet the basic criteria to be called absinthe that is laid out in this article. That suggests a legitimacy that is not backed up by this article and there isn't information provided on the Absinthe Sugar website to contradict this article and necessitate its rewriting. By contrast, WS and FV offer links to many distributors. The question before adding Absinthe Sugar to the external links is, "what content does it contribute that the current external links do not?" The external links are not just for any absinthe-related sites; they should be the most informative and accurate sites available. Peridotmetal (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Effects

I think the effects section should have an opening paragraph detailing the effects (and myths) of absinthe before discussing the history behind their discovery. And also some about different brands and types, somewhere in the article. Like, in the opening of the article, it says no evidence has shown it to be any more dangerous than ordinary spirits, but not dangerous doesn't mean not different. i.e. What makes absinthe different should be made more clear in the effect section. 69.220.2.188 (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There isn't any evidence that anything in particular in absinthe causes the much-ballyhooed "absinthe effect," nor has there been a study that indicates that absinthe causes any effects that are different from any other liquors. Any attempt to explain such things in the article would have to have citations and I don't think there's anything to cite. Peridotmetal (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the article refers to a study where high amounts of thujone and alcohol had a markedly different effect on people than just alcohol. Thujone does affect people. Moreover, thujone was used by medical researchers to simulate epileptic seizures - and seizures were one of the historically infamous effects of absinthe. Look, what it really comes down to is that the majority of information coming out on absinthe now is coming from a small group of distillers, whose interest is definitely in making their low-thujone absinthe generally accepted as the true stuff of bohemian romantic legend. Pseudo-absinthes never sold all that well, so they want to be perceived as authentic. Their own recent study in a German lab (in which two of the five researchers were the distillers themselves) showed the content of a few historical absinthes were well above the now-legal level (and the distillers/researchers - same lab - own earlier hypothesized historical level as well). The recent revelation of absinthe "myths" comes from these distillers. On the other side are some people who want whatever buzz thujone-heavy absinthe can give, ignoring the possibility that if what they believe is true, they will literally fry their brains and undermine their sanity. Thujone is nasty, dangerous stuff in high quantities, but there is not much evidence that it is a fun high. Basically, thujone is a lousy drug, and heavy in physiological damage in quantities large enough to be felt. Either enjoy the modern absinthes as they are (and some of them are really exquisite) or go get some real drugs and ignore thujone. If historical absinthe really was what it was reputed to be, then you don't want it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.20.190.24 (talk) 06:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The 'high' levels researched in said study and 'high' levels in absinthe are not the same thing (it would be a little like thinking that nutmeg is a hallucinogen thus a christmas latte will make you trip). The research you mentioned studied amounts higher than would be received from absinthe and could only tell effects through specific testing. The same papers that mention seizures also provided evidence that alcohol (the main drug in absinthe) protects against thujone poisoning. Absinthe was blamed for many things such as excessive gambling, I wouldn't consider many of the early studies to be reliable information. -- Ari (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting points, Ari. If I might point out, the level in the study was, I believe, 100 ppm for a noticable effect. The amounts found in the recent study of vintage absinthes was often, as I recall, in the 40-60 range. Is that enough? I do not know, but that is perhaps beyond your nutmeg analogy. As the vintage levels are often well above those of modern "legal" versions, are the modern ones "authentic"? Again, I do not know (and I do not care much). Does the fact that some early studies made wild claims invalidate all early studies and findings? Nope. Do the recent studies invalidate all earlier studies? Well, the heavy direct participation by interested parties (distillers) raises some conflict-of-interest issues, and the long-term stability of thujone in absinthe is asserted but was not studied (they presume the levels found one hundred years later are the same as at the time of production, and they presume that their tiny sample of mostly one maker is representative of Belle Epoque absinthe). Furthermore, many people who claim that absinthe and thujone have no extra effect then talk about the possible hypothetical untested notion that other herbs are the source of the effect they claim does not exist when the subject is thujone. Which is it? Basically, it really seems that the distillers are indulging in revisionist history for the sake of selling their product, and that rubs me the wrong way. A whole wave of recent articles have come out in the press putting out the new "scientific" findings, not mentioning the direct participation of interested parties in the research. That's like the old findings on cancer by tobacco-company-funded researchers. But again, the product of these same distillers is really incredibly tasty and should be appreciated for what they are and not measured against some almost unknown standard of effects of old absinthe (which seems to be your basic position as well). And someone interested in the legendary effects of absinthe might be better served in putting a quarter hit of LSD and an eighth of a gram of meth in a double shot of 151 Bacardi, then knocking that back. Which would simulate the legend, but I think I might pass on that one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.20.190.24 (talk) 02:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The study was based on the weight of the person. Giving 0.28 mg/kg(body weight) thujone in the high dose. This was noticeable in specific testings. Only 3 out of 25 subjects could tell any difference on their own. In other words the high dose in this test is on the very low end for actual effects (In alcohol terms, the "high-thujone" was like drinking low alcohol beer).

While conflict of interest should be watched it doesn't always mean bad data and since these reports are published in journals we can see how they went about gathering data, double check the procedures and compare their results with previous reports from others.

Long term stability of thujone has been studied and found that when heavily exposed to UV light thujone breaks down into detectable chemicals, so it is technically possible to tell if a sample has broken down.

There is no contradiction there. Some report an effect from absinthe (an effect never actually studied to see if it exists, every paper has just assumed it existed and went from there), thujone does not appear to cause said effect, and there are many chemicals in absinthe.

It should not brush you the wrong way, the idea that thujone is a 'drug' is mostly revisionist history. 100 years ago it was considered a poison, most if not all fun drug effects from thujone are post ban additions to absinthe's history. -- Ari (talk) 03:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we are starting to violate the "not a forum for discussion" rules, so I will not go further, but thank you for the interesting conversation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.20.190.24 (talk) 03:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Regulations

The regulations section appears exceedingly weak. Notably Canada and Switzerland have no citations at all. Mr.tougas (talk) 00:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Green colouring (Scheele's Green) as the cause of toxicity?

The article on Scheele's Green (an arsenic compound, used as a colourant) states that

 Despite its high toxicity, Scheele's Green was also used as a food dye for sweets, drink: the green in absinthe is now thought to be the  
 source of the problems with the liquor instead of the ingredient thujone

This absinthe article has no reference to the original colouring - perhaps someone could add it, and elaborate on the relative toxicity of arsenic vs thujone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.171.29 (talk) 05:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Marketing

Hey folks, I would like to point out that there are now several references to specific brands currently launching products. This is a encyclopedia article not a marketing outlet. I have deleted the reference to La Tourment Verte (not even considered absinthe by the wormwood society), St. George, Lucid, and Aphrodesia (whatever that is) from the history section.

I am not deleting other new additions without a discussion. I think the other references that have recently appeared in the modern revival section should also be removed. There are certain circumstances where brand references are important and appropriate. However these two new additions look very suspect to me and don't seem to add to the article. I would also like to point out that Absinthe is still prohibited in most of South America, and the Middle east making the statement "It is once again legal to produce and sell absinthe in every country where alcohol is legal" totally false.

Any objections to me fixing it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightcafe1 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do fix it. I too favor keeping brand names out of the article. Wahrmund (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Does the writer have proof of absinthe being prohibited in "most of South America, and the Middle east?" Leaving aside those Muslim countries where all liquor is banned, I am aware of absinthe being available in Dubai, Bahrain, Abu Dhabi, and Israel. In Brazil, there is even a locally made absinthe, Camargo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanmoss (talk • contribs) 06:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel it is best to refrain from denoting specific brands unless they are historically significant, or are of special importance in the marketplace. I've just removed the excessively detailed reference to the Canadian "Taboo" brand, as well as the accompanying claims that are clearly disputed by independent reviews.

The fewer brands that are mentioned specifically, the lesser the chances of marketing wars between the usual culprits. Vapeur (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)vapeur

Tags and FA

This article have so many tags for featured article. --Vojvodaen (talk) 07:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent Attacks by Versinthe

Someone is attacking the article by removing the link to www.feeverte.net near the bottom, and simultaneously inserting a reference to Versinthe that is both questionable and poorly written. Since Versinthe is clearly labeled as containing essence of badiane and sugar, it does not fit the descriptor of being "authentic and traditional" as clarified in the opening paragraphs. This negates its claim as the first genuine absinthe produced in post-band France. Likewise, I doubt anyone has seen documentation or proof that Pascal Rolland overturned any ban in France (which was effectively eradicated as of 1988), nor that the original release of Versinthe was even marketed as an absinthe (it was labeled as an 'anise amer' as per my recollection).

Be advised of these rogue and deliberate edits that seek to remove a valuable resource link and insert dubious claims. Vapeur (talk) 07:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)vapeur

La Fée Absinthe, released in 2000, was the first brand labelled absinthe distilled and bottled in France since the 1915 ban, initially for export from France, but now one of roughly fifty French-produced absinthes available in France.

Considering this relevant fact had remained unchallenged in the page for some time, only to be removed by the Versinthe activity, shouldn't this now be re-instated? Lafeeabsinthe (talk) 13:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Failing any objections, now that the Versinthe debate looks settled I'm gonna re-instate this next week. Lafeeabsinthe (talk) 11:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No objections. Alanmoss (talk) 11:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree, although if it was co-ordinated Versinthe activity, I would have expected to see some sources, however inaccurate others might find them. I see that a warning has been placed on the relevant user page: maybe that will stir him/her into action. Alanmoss (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I'm getting familiar with the way of wikipedia works...So this is the source of when Versinthe was released. An article dated from June 1999 by a trade French publication; L'Hotellerie Restauration, which is explaining when the first absinthe was sold in France. Please find the link:http://www.lhotellerie.fr/lhotellerie/Articles/M_2616_03_Juin_1999/Liquoristerie-de-Provence.html The other source I used is a book written by Marie-Claude Delahaye/ Absinthe: a living legend where she is attesting that Versinthe, a real absinthe, was the first absinthe to be released in France.

It looks like there is a confusion regarding the way Versinthe and any other absinthe is made. Versinthe contains the exact same amount of thujone, and no suugar. The recipe used to produce this liquor was issued from the Duplais book ( see the link below http://www.museeabsinthe.com/absintheLIVRES4.html which is only available in 4 copies. Versinthe followed the original recipe. Now regarding the confusion..The fist bottle of Versinthe was sold in France and hits the US in 2000. Now at this time, thujone wasn't available in the US so the Versinthe didn't contain any. Now that a legal level has been approved by the TTB, Versinthe contains the 10ppm legal. Versinthe is labeled " absinth liquor".Chanandler (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The first article cited states: "Versinthe ne contient pas d'absinthe." So if it didn't contain grand wormwood at that time, how was it absinthe? Alanmoss (talk) 05:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Versinthe liqueur and Versinthe Blanche are two very different products, and were released at different times. The product illustrated in the article 1999 Article is Versinthe liqueur, not the distilled "Versinthe Blanche". The label of Versinthe liqueur clearly states that it contains "cane sugar" (find a bottle and read it), and the website states plainly that it is made through maceration. Maceration and sugar do not create absinthe by any credible historical definition (e.g. Duplais). How much wormwood in it, and/or how much thujone in it does not matter.

Absinthe was defined by the industry and treatise authors well over a century before Marie-Claude Delahaye (or most any other living person) was born. What Marie Claude Delahaye perceives as 'real absinthe' or as 'historically authentic' seems to be purely a matter of her personal opinion (ref: Versinthe - 1999). What she claims publicly as 'real absinthe' and/or 'historically authentic' does not necessarily agree with either historical precedent, or the consensus of unbiased, educated opinion on the subject.

Versinthe Blanche, a distilled absinthe, was not yet created in 2000. As per my recollection, it did not appear until around 2002. Vapeur (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)vapeur

Distinction between spirits and liqueurs

As mentioned in the beginning of the article, absinthe was a spirit, not a sugary liqueur.

I have clarified that the common French descriptors for modern absinthes are "spiritueux aux plantes d'absinthe" and sometimes "absinthes distillées". I have also edited the text in that section to maintain integrity with the original definition, which disqualifies those that carry "liqueur aux plantes . . . " and equivalent as fitting the proper definition of absinthe, despite the fact they are marketed as such. Vapeur (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)vapeur

Republic of Georgia REGULATIONS?

Why is there an entry under "Regulations" for a country that does not regulate it? I thought, maybe people just haven't added all the countries yet, so I put New Zealand in saying pretty much what Republic of Georgia says minus the manufacturing bit - and it got deleted. If New Zealand cannot have an entry, please explain the significance of the Republic of Georgia entry under "REGULATIONS". --121.72.22.70 (talk) 10:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

An entry for New Zealand is indeed appropriate. When the entry of 'Georgia' was originally posted, it contained a marketing reference (which was promptly removed), just as did the recent New Zealand entry. Leave the legal status in, but please keep the marketing out.

Where the repeated attempts to make references to the Hapsburg brand are concerned, the first sentence of the article details the definition of absinthe that was edified some two centuries ago, and is supported both by ample material evidence and volumes of written information on the subject. This historical definition serves as the cornerstone of the article, and is the standard by which all subsequent modern 'absinthes' can be judged. Whether or not certain modern products (e.g. the Hapsburg brand) fall within the historical definition or not is immaterial, and cannot change the historical definition. Vapeur (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)vapeur

Looking again at the article, there is no independent entry for New Zealand that details the modern regulations. If you can procure the details of the modern regulations, an independent entry for New Zealand would certainly make a welcomed addition to the article. Again, just please omit any specific brand references. Vapeur (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)vapeur

My recollection is that Australia and New Zealand share the same regulations. Maybe they should be in one section, rather than just a repeat. Alanmoss (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

IM SORRY

WHAT??i have had real proper czech absinthe and it is extremely hallucinogenic.Luke12345abcd (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

What is "proper czech absinthe"? -- Ari (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Alcohol-Poisoning can cause hallucinations. Absinthe generally does not. --- It doesn't stick. (talk) 00:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Coloring, Artificial or otherwise

"History" is not a suitable reference. If there were preban absinthes that were colored by artificial means (i.e., other than chlorophyll) please identify by brand. --- It doesn't stick. (talk) 05:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh, that came across a little more tart than I intended, but you get the gist of what I don't get, got it?- It doesn't stick. (talk) 06:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

History is a valid reference when the sources should already be cited in the article. I believe the mentioning of artificial coloring is noted in historical manuals. Dangerous artificial coloring was used as well, which is thought to have contributed to the hysteria around absinthism. While it may not be the mark of "quality" especially in the past, it was most certainly done. -- Ari (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Which historical manuals? And what absinthes? Sure, many bathtub hooches were died green with all sorts of crap and called "absinthe" at the height of La Belle Époque, we've established that demand was high - but you or I could just as easily make a bottle of smoky brown grain alcohol colored with, I don't know, mud? and call it "bourbon", but does that mean we can write in Wikipedia that Bourbon is a smoky brown grain alcohol colored with mud? I find references to preban absinthes that were colored with chlorophyll, those that are left clear, and a single print advertisement for one that was colored with red hibiscus (though I can find no reference to anyone ever seeing a bottle, let alone drinking it, leaving me unsure if it was ever actually produced (possibly) or if it was simply a novelty item of its day (probable)). I'm certainly open to being convinced of your point of view, but you're going to have to - you know - convince me. Educate me.--- It doesn't stick. (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you could support your analogy. Opinion does not a position make. Perhaps you should read through the manuals I believe you can find Duplais and DeBrevrans at the wormwoodsociety.org. It's often good to DeBrevrans Ordinaire absinthe "Color green with indigo blue or better with Chlorophyl." Of course when dealing with absinthe even naturally colored products (with addition of chlorophyl) is not the same as one that goes through the coloration step. -- Ari (talk) 00:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Taking this to your talk page, with your permission. No point in "warring" over semantics.- It doesn't stick. (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. -- Ari (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Condensing "Regulations"

This secttion appears to be getting out of hand. Having separate headings for the legislation in individual countries just doesn't work in the long run. The section needs to summarized and if all of the content is to be kept, it should really be moved to a separate sub-article.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible Conflict of Interest

I see Binksternet removed both an earlier entry (link to a List of Absinthe Cocktails) as well as a new Link to a List of US approved absinthes. I confirm that these were both links to a Blog I write. The first link has stood for a long time (over a year, I believe) and is unique, highly relevant information not published elsewhere. The newer list seemed to me to meet a need to chronicle in one place all the approved US absinthes. Can other editors comment on whether or not these links are useful inclusions on the site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanmoss (talk • contribs) 18:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Alan, the blog is fantastic, there's no question about it. This link, the one with the list of more than a hundred mixed drinks that have absinthe in them, is a marvelous piece of work; each of the drink links leads to a page describing it. I replaced the blog reference with reference to the Savoy Cocktail Book since the Savoy is not tainted with regard to Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. The small paragraph about more than 30 US absinthes was one that I saw not only as WP:COI but original research as well. I felt the whole addition needed to be taken out. It sucks, but Wikipedia's policy means that an author can't add links to their own work. Your best bet for getting your writing into Wikipedia is to have it published by a larger concern (newspaper, magazine) and then have somebody else bring it here. Binksternet (talk) 05:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What is better?

1. A link to a source for every single absinthe cocktail in the book? Or

2. A link to Amazon where one can buy the book (assuming it is in stock and that one wants to order from Amazon USA)?

Is another option to see if I can find someone else who thinks that 1 is better, and see if they will revert the edit? I assume the over-riding aim is to have the best article we can. Alanmoss (talk) 08:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

US absinthe bottle image

I'm unsure what the need of this image is. As a specific brand it also can hurt the neutrality of the article by putting one specific brand over others (which is why there have never been any single bottle images on the page before). So while I understand the happiness of having US made absinthe, I don't think the single bottle picture fits. -- Ari (talk) 04:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If there were, say four US bottle images then they could be put into a mosaic image with all of them included. I've got some St. George Verte photos... Binksternet (talk) 05:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Which seems a bit US centric, since there is nothing special about products from the US over any other country. The best was to represent them if at all would be another group picture but with US absinthe in the mix as well. -- Ari (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I put it in to illustrate that is it now made here, it happens to be a bottle that I own. If you guys don't like it here, feel free to remove it. Crypticfirefly (talk) 01:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed. Vapeur (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)vapeur

Flavouring

I'm sure this has been brought up before, if not, i'm sorry. But, didn't the article previously mention the flavour of Absinthe as similar to aniseed? Also, i'm not sure where i read this but, i've read so that crystalised ginger is sometimes used in-place of a sugar cube to give Verte-Absinthe a more interesting flavour. Can anyone confirm that this is a practice with Absinthe, whether comman or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.6.109 (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Authentic Absinthe has a complex taste. Anise is one of the main ingredients, but it should not mask the taste of wormwood and other herbs. Using ginger is not authentic and it would overpower many of the herbs used in real absinthe. Jenever Spirit (talk) 11:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, i've been pondering on that for quite some time. 20:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.4.150 (talk)

Thujone in Hapsburg Absinthe

I have reverted a part of an edit which claims that a brand of Absinthe (Hapsburg) contains no thujone. The manufacturer claims that their Absinthe contains thujone and I can't find a reference claiming that Hapsburg does not contain thujone. Jenever Spirit (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)