This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Absolut Vodka article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Absolut vodka was involved in a controversy due to an ad created in Mexico portraying a Mexican map prior the USA-Mexican war of 1848, showing Texas, California, Nevada, New Mexico and other states as part of Mexico with the phrase "In an Absolut World"
The ad run for months in Mexico until blogger Laura Martinez who also works at Advertising Age posted it in English causing the anger of several people who interpreted it as a call for invasion, instead of a recall of history.
On April 4th Absolut apologizes and removed the ad from media.
Due to copyrights the ad can not be showed here.
I suppose Reuters is run by "white nationalists"? The Independent of London? United Press International? The Local, a SWEDISH newspaper? The L.A. Times?
Absolut value of ad low north of border The Herald-Times, IN MEXICO CITY — The latest advertising campaign in Mexico from Swedish vodka maker Absolut seemed to push all the right buttons south of the US border, ... http://www.heraldtimesonline.com/stories/2008/04/08/nationworld.qp-9758035.sto
Absolut vodka pulls ad showing California in Mexico Reuters - 11 hours ago MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - The distillers of Sweden's Absolut vodka have withdrawn an advertisement run in Mexico that angered many US citizens by idealizing ... http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0729018920080408
Storm in a shot glass as advert redraws map of Americas Independent, UK - 14 hours ago By David Usborne in New York A whimsical ad by the makers of Absolut vodka aimed solely at consumers in Mexico has drawn the ire of some ... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/storm-in-a-shot-glass-as-advert-redraws-map-of-americas-805764.html
'Absolut' Arrogance Evening Bulletin, PA - 20 hours ago According to the Swedish vodka maker, the answer is simple: In an Absolut world, Texas' independence would be rescinded, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ... http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=19460395&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8
Absolut Vodka causes a stir with Mexico ad Gadling, CA - 20 hours ago by Anna Brones Apr 7th 2008 @ 11:16AM Absolut Vodka is known round the world for its creative ad campaigns. With the most recent campaign however, ... http://www.gadling.com/2008/04/07/absolut-vodka-causes-a-stir-with-mexico-ad/
Absolut-ly sorry Independent, UK - Apr 7, 2008 By Leonard Doyle The hilarious campaign slogan, "In an Absolut World", showed a 1830s-era map when Mexico included California, Texas and other southwestern ... http://blogs.independent.co.uk/the_campaign_trailers/2008/04/absolut-ly-sorr.html
The world is not Absolut Daily Vidette, IL - Apr 6, 2008 In an advertising campaign for the Swedish vodka brand, Absolut, targeted for Mexico, a map of the US and Mexico is shown. While the actual act of showing a ... http://www.dailyvidette.com/home/news/2008/04/07/Viewpoint/The-World.Is.Not.Absolut-3305800.shtml
Vodka firm 'sorry' over Mexico advert Scotsman, United Kingdom - Apr 6, 2008 By Mark Stevenson THE Absolut vodka company has apologised for an advertising campaign depicting the south-western United States as part of Mexico, ... http://news.scotsman.com/world/Vodka-firm-39sorry39-over-.3952992.jp
Absolut campaign sparks controversy United Press International - Apr 6, 2008 LOS ANGELES, April 6 (UPI) -- A new marketing campaign for the Swedish vodka Absolut that shows California as part of Mexico has sparked a growing ... http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Entertainment/2008/04/06/absolut_campaign_sparks_controversy/8090/
Mexico reclaims California in Absolut Vodka advert The Local, Sweden - Apr 5, 2008 A print and billboard campaign by Absolut Vodka in Mexico has caused tempers to flare in the United States. Some Americans have called for a boycott of the ... http://www.thelocal.se/10928/20080405/
Sparks continue to fly over Absolut's Mexico ad Los Angeles Times, CA - Apr 5, 2008 The furor over the Absolut vodka Mexican border ad roars on. The Drudge Report posted a link to our post yesterday showing the ad and including the tagline, ... http://feeds.latimes.com/~r/LaPlaza/~3/264592416/sparks-fly-over.html
Vodka Maker Apologizes for Ad Depicting Southwest as Part of Mexico FOXNews - Apr 5, 2008 MEXICO CITY — The Absolut vodka company apologized Saturday for an ad campaign depicting the southwestern US as part of Mexico amid angry calls for a ... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,346964,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.130.16 ( talk) 13:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Liberal Intellectual Facism, fighting Liberty Loving Mixed Raced Freedom loving Americans defending their country and their BORDERS. Racist Liberals and Self Hating Americans are the oppositin and the minority in this equation, and really shows the United States for what it is. These liberal "keeper of the truth" are a band of pathetic losers. This is the face of Capitolism, we do not have to like a product simply becasue they put up a political ad, in fact we are fully in our rights to SPEAK ABOUT IT, and to BLOG ABOUT IT, and to NOT BUT THE ABSOLUT brand. Idiots like Rabbit and Orange Mike will never "get" that, and have no business being "keepers of the truth" which casts doubt on the inofrmatino process at the WIKI. IT is ABSOLUT shit and absolut censoring, and absolut (ly) NOT democracy. Remember that little "freedom of ideas" thingy? Liberals tend to forget that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.187.128 ( talk • contribs)
Semi-protection merely means that anonymous editors cannot make changes to this controversial article during the current furor. There are a number of registered editors who can and do make edits here, who disagree with me as to the appropriate level of emphasis the Mexican liquor ad should get (including at least one who thinks it is not biased to call this a "reconquista" ad[!]). The only people being excluded are those unwilling to register an account at Wikipedia. --
Orange Mike |
Talk
17:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Who are "Orangemike" and The rabbit in the suitcase"? Are they important Wikipedia editors? Do they run things here at Wikipedia? Or are they just run-of-the-mill blame-America-first liberals with typing and vocabulary skills, who want to quash a story with obvious links to the Mexican reconquista movement (think, La Raza), which story has been taken up by virtually the entire main stream media (MSM). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikpedguy ( talk • contribs) 20:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC) — Wikpedguy ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
To provide more information about the popularity of reconquista in Mexico, at http://www.illegalaliens.us/aztlan.htm, please find the following text: "A 'Hispanic Homeland' could be written off as the work of extremists were it not for wide-spread support by Mexicans. A June 2002 Zogby poll of Mexicans found that a substantial majority of Mexican citizens believe that southwestern America is rightfully the territory of Mexico and that Mexicans do not need the permission of the U.S. to enter. The poll found that 58 percent of Mexicans agree with the statement, "The territory of the United States' southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico." Zogby said 28 percent disagreed, while another 14 percent said they weren't sure." Wikpedguy ( talk) 04:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Our second reference in the article says:
It seems to me that to say Malkin was merely one amongst many outraged patriots in the blogosphere downplays her role in a way that obscures the actual events. The rabbit in the suitcase ( talk) 02:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I should add that this is not purely a matter of priority. Even if she weren't the first to post on the matter, it would still be more than fair to say she had a leadership role in the prosecution of the campaign against the ad. The rabbit in the suitcase ( talk) 02:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, you might like to take a look at Malkin's recent posts on this topic, particularly, her posts about this very Wikipedia page. I think it would provide some insight into the volume of new editors here and the tone of their commentary. The rabbit in the suitcase ( talk) 02:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
You're obviously trying to marginalize this part of the Absolut entry as being "a Michelle Malkin thing." Anyone can see that. Urzatron ( talk) 18:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Your continued insistence that Malkin has anything to do with this is preposterous. With a search on "Absolut ad" in google news the first ten news items showed only ONE that had the word "Malkin" in it and that is because it was written by her! If Reuters, FOX, Winnipeg Sun, Consumerist, etc. all think that Malkin has nothing to do with this who are you to pretend she does? You give me an outside source that shows she has anything to do with this or remove the reference.
"Do you dispute that various bloggers, led by Michelle Malkin, drove the controversy? Unless you have credible information to the contrary" Yes, Reuters disagrees with you ( http://www.reuters.com/article/ADVERT/idUSN0729018920080409): "Although it was not shown in the United States, U.S. media outlets picked up on the ad". They don't say "Malkin". They don't say "right-wing extremists". They don't say "bloggers". They say "media outlets". NO ONE else says "Malkin". Now, the burden of proof shifts to you rabbit. I've provided proof Malkin doesn't belong in this article (as much as a negative can be proved). You provide the proof she does. And one last thing: I believe in order for something to be included in the Wikipedia entry there must be some outside proof showing it needs to be included (yet you cite nothing other than your opinion on Malkin), not the other way around. No one should be forced to prove a negative here, which is what you are trying to force others to do. ( Mundunugu ( talk) 00:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC))
I've removed references to "Reconquista" and the link to the corresponding wikipedia page because:
1) The page is currently in rather poor order, the recent target of a VfD and currently under review for rather severe POV issues, hence probably isn't the kind of thing to be directing casual readers to.
2) It is jargon used by the bloggers who began the whole business that is heavily loaded (for example, its use in wikipedia outside of a page dedicated to explaining what it's supposed to be implies that it has an actual, coherent existence and a significant following in Mexico, which is very, very far from having been established in these pages or, as far as I can tell, elsewhere). I've reworded the passage to reflect what the actual substantive claims of the ads critics with respect to incitement of some sort of aggression amongst Mexicans against the United States are (mirroring language that can be found either in our reference on the matter or in the actual blog posts they reference in turn).
Also, as I believe I've mentioned, you cannot discuss a controversy with any credibility without saying who the opposing parties are. Hence, it is unacceptably vague to merely say "some Americans" found the ads offensive and it is really rather striking that some editors are keen to deal in that level of vagueness when our own references tell us pretty much exactly who those Americans were. And to say "many newspapers, television networks, and conservative bloggers reported that some Americans found the ads offensive" is simply perverse. The conservative bloggers were reporting that... they themselves were offended. The effort to disconnect those bloggers from the "some" or "many Americans" who were offended is bizarre. They are one and the same and if the article does not reflect that, it has broken faith with the reader. The rabbit in the suitcase ( talk) 05:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Both sources are now in the article. Do we need to continue contrasting them? Urzatron ( talk) 14:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Rabbit before you go on your conservative bloggers obsession you should not ignore the other national media sourced facts that the conservative blogger Michele had NOTHING to do with this. NOTHING. Please stop changing this fact based article with your pet obsessions. Until you have PROOF and can refute with the facts I gave above stop with your left-wing POV pushing in this article.( Mundunugu ( talk) 17:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC))
I'm interested in the idea that Orangemike just presented, which is the idea that perhaps "Reaction among Americans" is too broad. I don't disagree with this idea. However, I would like to note that the word "conservatives" was added in reference to the MSNBC source -- and I don't believe that that source mentions conservatives at all.
Perhaps "Reaction among some American consumers"? Thanks in advance if you comment. Urzatron ( talk) 13:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I hope everyone is in agreement with my edit just now to revert a rather strongly POV-pushing edit by Phred? -- Orange Mike | Talk 14:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps this knowledge will help Rabbit, OrangeMike and others like them see why not just "a small contingent of white supremacists and other miscellaneous right wingers" were vexed at the Mexican Reconquista evident in the Absolut ad. Increased crime rates (Modesto, California is the car theft capital of the nation; several times now, trial courts in Riverside County, California have had to suspend all civil prosecutions and focus only on the backlogged criminal prosecutions; California prisons are overflowing with Latinos), the increased school drop-out rates, the refusal to change to English usage, etc. which are all part of the Mexican invasion, are of concern to knowledgeable U.S. citizens on all political sides.
An important sentence from the article quoted below: "Three-fourths of Americans wanted more restrictions on immigration." (Pew Research Center poll)
The Way Our World Ends by Patrick J. Buchanan http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26323 Posted: 05/02/2008
75% of Americans want more restrictions on immigration, but Rabbit and OrangeMike describe crtics of the Absolut Reconquista ad as "a small contingent of white supremacists and other miscellaneous right wingers."
Then R, OM and U engage in smug, incestuous little small talk enjoying each other's revisions to the article. I have a job and cannot spend every day protecting the POV of my favorite articles. Apparently these ladies are trustafarians or beneficiaries of government largess (taxpayer funded) and can hover 24/7 over their Wikipedia entries like mother hens.
Wikipedia needs a Rescue from these birds. Wikpedguy ( talk) 17:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
People won't take you seriously if you make personal attacks and don't assume good faith. Urzatron ( talk) 14:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there any way that we can include the image of the Absolut Mexico ad in the article? Naraht ( talk) 21:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Link rot seems to have done in all existing references on this supposed controversy. Unsurprisingly, this looks like a flash in the pan in retrospect, a case of political activists and bloggers descending on a wikipedia page to use it as a signal booster for their political message. The use of this space to link copy from a competitor's PR flack hoping to capitalize on the brief web-based interest in this matter makes the political nature of the edits at the time very clear.
As this is now largely unsourced, the incident itself was not noteworthy, and the edits on it appear to be the result of systemic bias in favor of web-based enthusiasm, I've been bold and removed the subsection. The rabbit in the suitcase ( talk) 11:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Time is not a blog. reuters is not a blog. ABQ is not a blog. Further this book mentions it (do not know the details, the specific links are in a footnote, can't see the referenced content) http://www.amazon.com/Remembering-Forgotten-War-U-S-Mexican-Perspective/dp/155849930X. Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Here is the book content (very bottom of p237, and then 238) https://books.google.com/books?id=rN2iIORgBzAC&pg=PA237#v=onepage&q&f=false Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
And here are several academic sources covering the story too.
Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I think I'm good with the current version Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
"Absolut was established in 2020 by Lars Olsson Smith and is produced in Åhus, Sweden" can somebody verify this and fix? Xskuzz0r ( talk) 16:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I changed a lot, removed a completely unsourced and non-notable section from the page and change the wording on quite a lot of it, as the page read like an advertisement. SleepForever ( talk) 21:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Absolut Vodka article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Absolut vodka was involved in a controversy due to an ad created in Mexico portraying a Mexican map prior the USA-Mexican war of 1848, showing Texas, California, Nevada, New Mexico and other states as part of Mexico with the phrase "In an Absolut World"
The ad run for months in Mexico until blogger Laura Martinez who also works at Advertising Age posted it in English causing the anger of several people who interpreted it as a call for invasion, instead of a recall of history.
On April 4th Absolut apologizes and removed the ad from media.
Due to copyrights the ad can not be showed here.
I suppose Reuters is run by "white nationalists"? The Independent of London? United Press International? The Local, a SWEDISH newspaper? The L.A. Times?
Absolut value of ad low north of border The Herald-Times, IN MEXICO CITY — The latest advertising campaign in Mexico from Swedish vodka maker Absolut seemed to push all the right buttons south of the US border, ... http://www.heraldtimesonline.com/stories/2008/04/08/nationworld.qp-9758035.sto
Absolut vodka pulls ad showing California in Mexico Reuters - 11 hours ago MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - The distillers of Sweden's Absolut vodka have withdrawn an advertisement run in Mexico that angered many US citizens by idealizing ... http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0729018920080408
Storm in a shot glass as advert redraws map of Americas Independent, UK - 14 hours ago By David Usborne in New York A whimsical ad by the makers of Absolut vodka aimed solely at consumers in Mexico has drawn the ire of some ... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/storm-in-a-shot-glass-as-advert-redraws-map-of-americas-805764.html
'Absolut' Arrogance Evening Bulletin, PA - 20 hours ago According to the Swedish vodka maker, the answer is simple: In an Absolut world, Texas' independence would be rescinded, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ... http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=19460395&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8
Absolut Vodka causes a stir with Mexico ad Gadling, CA - 20 hours ago by Anna Brones Apr 7th 2008 @ 11:16AM Absolut Vodka is known round the world for its creative ad campaigns. With the most recent campaign however, ... http://www.gadling.com/2008/04/07/absolut-vodka-causes-a-stir-with-mexico-ad/
Absolut-ly sorry Independent, UK - Apr 7, 2008 By Leonard Doyle The hilarious campaign slogan, "In an Absolut World", showed a 1830s-era map when Mexico included California, Texas and other southwestern ... http://blogs.independent.co.uk/the_campaign_trailers/2008/04/absolut-ly-sorr.html
The world is not Absolut Daily Vidette, IL - Apr 6, 2008 In an advertising campaign for the Swedish vodka brand, Absolut, targeted for Mexico, a map of the US and Mexico is shown. While the actual act of showing a ... http://www.dailyvidette.com/home/news/2008/04/07/Viewpoint/The-World.Is.Not.Absolut-3305800.shtml
Vodka firm 'sorry' over Mexico advert Scotsman, United Kingdom - Apr 6, 2008 By Mark Stevenson THE Absolut vodka company has apologised for an advertising campaign depicting the south-western United States as part of Mexico, ... http://news.scotsman.com/world/Vodka-firm-39sorry39-over-.3952992.jp
Absolut campaign sparks controversy United Press International - Apr 6, 2008 LOS ANGELES, April 6 (UPI) -- A new marketing campaign for the Swedish vodka Absolut that shows California as part of Mexico has sparked a growing ... http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Entertainment/2008/04/06/absolut_campaign_sparks_controversy/8090/
Mexico reclaims California in Absolut Vodka advert The Local, Sweden - Apr 5, 2008 A print and billboard campaign by Absolut Vodka in Mexico has caused tempers to flare in the United States. Some Americans have called for a boycott of the ... http://www.thelocal.se/10928/20080405/
Sparks continue to fly over Absolut's Mexico ad Los Angeles Times, CA - Apr 5, 2008 The furor over the Absolut vodka Mexican border ad roars on. The Drudge Report posted a link to our post yesterday showing the ad and including the tagline, ... http://feeds.latimes.com/~r/LaPlaza/~3/264592416/sparks-fly-over.html
Vodka Maker Apologizes for Ad Depicting Southwest as Part of Mexico FOXNews - Apr 5, 2008 MEXICO CITY — The Absolut vodka company apologized Saturday for an ad campaign depicting the southwestern US as part of Mexico amid angry calls for a ... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,346964,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.130.16 ( talk) 13:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Liberal Intellectual Facism, fighting Liberty Loving Mixed Raced Freedom loving Americans defending their country and their BORDERS. Racist Liberals and Self Hating Americans are the oppositin and the minority in this equation, and really shows the United States for what it is. These liberal "keeper of the truth" are a band of pathetic losers. This is the face of Capitolism, we do not have to like a product simply becasue they put up a political ad, in fact we are fully in our rights to SPEAK ABOUT IT, and to BLOG ABOUT IT, and to NOT BUT THE ABSOLUT brand. Idiots like Rabbit and Orange Mike will never "get" that, and have no business being "keepers of the truth" which casts doubt on the inofrmatino process at the WIKI. IT is ABSOLUT shit and absolut censoring, and absolut (ly) NOT democracy. Remember that little "freedom of ideas" thingy? Liberals tend to forget that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.187.128 ( talk • contribs)
Semi-protection merely means that anonymous editors cannot make changes to this controversial article during the current furor. There are a number of registered editors who can and do make edits here, who disagree with me as to the appropriate level of emphasis the Mexican liquor ad should get (including at least one who thinks it is not biased to call this a "reconquista" ad[!]). The only people being excluded are those unwilling to register an account at Wikipedia. --
Orange Mike |
Talk
17:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Who are "Orangemike" and The rabbit in the suitcase"? Are they important Wikipedia editors? Do they run things here at Wikipedia? Or are they just run-of-the-mill blame-America-first liberals with typing and vocabulary skills, who want to quash a story with obvious links to the Mexican reconquista movement (think, La Raza), which story has been taken up by virtually the entire main stream media (MSM). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikpedguy ( talk • contribs) 20:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC) — Wikpedguy ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
To provide more information about the popularity of reconquista in Mexico, at http://www.illegalaliens.us/aztlan.htm, please find the following text: "A 'Hispanic Homeland' could be written off as the work of extremists were it not for wide-spread support by Mexicans. A June 2002 Zogby poll of Mexicans found that a substantial majority of Mexican citizens believe that southwestern America is rightfully the territory of Mexico and that Mexicans do not need the permission of the U.S. to enter. The poll found that 58 percent of Mexicans agree with the statement, "The territory of the United States' southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico." Zogby said 28 percent disagreed, while another 14 percent said they weren't sure." Wikpedguy ( talk) 04:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Our second reference in the article says:
It seems to me that to say Malkin was merely one amongst many outraged patriots in the blogosphere downplays her role in a way that obscures the actual events. The rabbit in the suitcase ( talk) 02:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I should add that this is not purely a matter of priority. Even if she weren't the first to post on the matter, it would still be more than fair to say she had a leadership role in the prosecution of the campaign against the ad. The rabbit in the suitcase ( talk) 02:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, you might like to take a look at Malkin's recent posts on this topic, particularly, her posts about this very Wikipedia page. I think it would provide some insight into the volume of new editors here and the tone of their commentary. The rabbit in the suitcase ( talk) 02:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
You're obviously trying to marginalize this part of the Absolut entry as being "a Michelle Malkin thing." Anyone can see that. Urzatron ( talk) 18:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Your continued insistence that Malkin has anything to do with this is preposterous. With a search on "Absolut ad" in google news the first ten news items showed only ONE that had the word "Malkin" in it and that is because it was written by her! If Reuters, FOX, Winnipeg Sun, Consumerist, etc. all think that Malkin has nothing to do with this who are you to pretend she does? You give me an outside source that shows she has anything to do with this or remove the reference.
"Do you dispute that various bloggers, led by Michelle Malkin, drove the controversy? Unless you have credible information to the contrary" Yes, Reuters disagrees with you ( http://www.reuters.com/article/ADVERT/idUSN0729018920080409): "Although it was not shown in the United States, U.S. media outlets picked up on the ad". They don't say "Malkin". They don't say "right-wing extremists". They don't say "bloggers". They say "media outlets". NO ONE else says "Malkin". Now, the burden of proof shifts to you rabbit. I've provided proof Malkin doesn't belong in this article (as much as a negative can be proved). You provide the proof she does. And one last thing: I believe in order for something to be included in the Wikipedia entry there must be some outside proof showing it needs to be included (yet you cite nothing other than your opinion on Malkin), not the other way around. No one should be forced to prove a negative here, which is what you are trying to force others to do. ( Mundunugu ( talk) 00:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC))
I've removed references to "Reconquista" and the link to the corresponding wikipedia page because:
1) The page is currently in rather poor order, the recent target of a VfD and currently under review for rather severe POV issues, hence probably isn't the kind of thing to be directing casual readers to.
2) It is jargon used by the bloggers who began the whole business that is heavily loaded (for example, its use in wikipedia outside of a page dedicated to explaining what it's supposed to be implies that it has an actual, coherent existence and a significant following in Mexico, which is very, very far from having been established in these pages or, as far as I can tell, elsewhere). I've reworded the passage to reflect what the actual substantive claims of the ads critics with respect to incitement of some sort of aggression amongst Mexicans against the United States are (mirroring language that can be found either in our reference on the matter or in the actual blog posts they reference in turn).
Also, as I believe I've mentioned, you cannot discuss a controversy with any credibility without saying who the opposing parties are. Hence, it is unacceptably vague to merely say "some Americans" found the ads offensive and it is really rather striking that some editors are keen to deal in that level of vagueness when our own references tell us pretty much exactly who those Americans were. And to say "many newspapers, television networks, and conservative bloggers reported that some Americans found the ads offensive" is simply perverse. The conservative bloggers were reporting that... they themselves were offended. The effort to disconnect those bloggers from the "some" or "many Americans" who were offended is bizarre. They are one and the same and if the article does not reflect that, it has broken faith with the reader. The rabbit in the suitcase ( talk) 05:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Both sources are now in the article. Do we need to continue contrasting them? Urzatron ( talk) 14:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Rabbit before you go on your conservative bloggers obsession you should not ignore the other national media sourced facts that the conservative blogger Michele had NOTHING to do with this. NOTHING. Please stop changing this fact based article with your pet obsessions. Until you have PROOF and can refute with the facts I gave above stop with your left-wing POV pushing in this article.( Mundunugu ( talk) 17:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC))
I'm interested in the idea that Orangemike just presented, which is the idea that perhaps "Reaction among Americans" is too broad. I don't disagree with this idea. However, I would like to note that the word "conservatives" was added in reference to the MSNBC source -- and I don't believe that that source mentions conservatives at all.
Perhaps "Reaction among some American consumers"? Thanks in advance if you comment. Urzatron ( talk) 13:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I hope everyone is in agreement with my edit just now to revert a rather strongly POV-pushing edit by Phred? -- Orange Mike | Talk 14:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps this knowledge will help Rabbit, OrangeMike and others like them see why not just "a small contingent of white supremacists and other miscellaneous right wingers" were vexed at the Mexican Reconquista evident in the Absolut ad. Increased crime rates (Modesto, California is the car theft capital of the nation; several times now, trial courts in Riverside County, California have had to suspend all civil prosecutions and focus only on the backlogged criminal prosecutions; California prisons are overflowing with Latinos), the increased school drop-out rates, the refusal to change to English usage, etc. which are all part of the Mexican invasion, are of concern to knowledgeable U.S. citizens on all political sides.
An important sentence from the article quoted below: "Three-fourths of Americans wanted more restrictions on immigration." (Pew Research Center poll)
The Way Our World Ends by Patrick J. Buchanan http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26323 Posted: 05/02/2008
75% of Americans want more restrictions on immigration, but Rabbit and OrangeMike describe crtics of the Absolut Reconquista ad as "a small contingent of white supremacists and other miscellaneous right wingers."
Then R, OM and U engage in smug, incestuous little small talk enjoying each other's revisions to the article. I have a job and cannot spend every day protecting the POV of my favorite articles. Apparently these ladies are trustafarians or beneficiaries of government largess (taxpayer funded) and can hover 24/7 over their Wikipedia entries like mother hens.
Wikipedia needs a Rescue from these birds. Wikpedguy ( talk) 17:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
People won't take you seriously if you make personal attacks and don't assume good faith. Urzatron ( talk) 14:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there any way that we can include the image of the Absolut Mexico ad in the article? Naraht ( talk) 21:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Link rot seems to have done in all existing references on this supposed controversy. Unsurprisingly, this looks like a flash in the pan in retrospect, a case of political activists and bloggers descending on a wikipedia page to use it as a signal booster for their political message. The use of this space to link copy from a competitor's PR flack hoping to capitalize on the brief web-based interest in this matter makes the political nature of the edits at the time very clear.
As this is now largely unsourced, the incident itself was not noteworthy, and the edits on it appear to be the result of systemic bias in favor of web-based enthusiasm, I've been bold and removed the subsection. The rabbit in the suitcase ( talk) 11:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Time is not a blog. reuters is not a blog. ABQ is not a blog. Further this book mentions it (do not know the details, the specific links are in a footnote, can't see the referenced content) http://www.amazon.com/Remembering-Forgotten-War-U-S-Mexican-Perspective/dp/155849930X. Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Here is the book content (very bottom of p237, and then 238) https://books.google.com/books?id=rN2iIORgBzAC&pg=PA237#v=onepage&q&f=false Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
And here are several academic sources covering the story too.
Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I think I'm good with the current version Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
"Absolut was established in 2020 by Lars Olsson Smith and is produced in Åhus, Sweden" can somebody verify this and fix? Xskuzz0r ( talk) 16:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I changed a lot, removed a completely unsourced and non-notable section from the page and change the wording on quite a lot of it, as the page read like an advertisement. SleepForever ( talk) 21:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)