Talk:Absolut Vodka

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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.

White Nationalists? Really?[edit]

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, ...

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California in Mexico Reuters - 11 hours ago MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - The distillers of Sweden's Absolut vodka have withdrawn an advertisement run in Mexico that angered many US citizens by idealizing ...

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 ...

'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hours ago According to the Swedish vodka maker, the answer is simple: In an Absolut world, Texas' independence would be rescinded, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ...

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, ...

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 ...

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 ...

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, ...

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 ...

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 ...

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, ...

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 ...,2933,346964,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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 (talkcontribs) 20:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Wikpedguy (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

Reconquista Movement Popular in Mexico[edit]

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

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

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

Our second reference in the article says:

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

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

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

The first conservative blogger to mention the ad (as far as I can tell) was Jim Hoft ("Gateway Pundit"), in this post [1]. Malkin picked it up from him or one of those who followed him. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
So it would seem, but there is an important difference between gateway pundit's post and Malkin's first post on the matter: Malkin provides her readers with contact information. In other words, she moves the issue from a simple "that taint right" to the level of email campaigns. Again, I don't think you can accurately portray this story without mentioning Malkin's central role. The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

"Do you dispute that various bloggers, led by Michelle Malkin, drove the controversy? Unless you have credible information to the contrary" Yes, Reuters disagrees with you ( "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)

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

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

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

Reaction among _______[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

A Source for Opposition to the Ad[edit]

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 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)

  • Lol this is two months old but still hilarious comedy gold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:06, 11 July 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)

Image of Absolut Mexico[edit]

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)

Because of copyright laws, no. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The "Reconquista" ad, 7 years later[edit]

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)

I will be restoring. notability is not temporary, and it is fairly trivial to find RS discussing the ad and its controversy (in addition to the mounds of non-RS blogs talking about it). Additionally the link rotted ones are probably available via wayback. [2] [3][4][5][6] Gaijin42 (talk) 15:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
The point is that it was not a noteworthy event in the first place. It got routine news coverage from online outlets. A substantial portion of the subsection's text is literally a press release followed by mention of a press release from a competitor. Its coverage in the article is out of proportion with the significance of the event. The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
It had international coverage, from major outlets. that is pretty much the text book definition of notable. If you would like to build consensus for some changes, Im sure some could be made, but wholesale deletion is not an option. For example, I would support cutting the Skyy portion as a start. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like a good place to start. The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
What would you say to knocking it down to the paragraph beginning "In 2008,"? The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
The 1st pargraph is notable outside of this controversy (as one of their major ad campaigns). I think the 3rd paragraph is also useful (although I could see some tweaks to it). The blockquote is long, but it seems unfair to not print the companies response.Gaijin42 (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
If the text does not make the controversy out to be a major thing, I don't think there's a need to print the company's response. The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Agreed re: first graf. If it's down to those two paragraphs, the only issue I see is that the language "some American consumers" sounds overly broad, but if the Malkin reference is retained, I think that's enough. The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 16:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Some of your references are blog posts, btw. The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
WP:NEWSBLOG Gaijin42 (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Your English language news sources are all news blogs, except one, which is an opinion piece by Michelle Malkin. I don't dispute that these things happened, I dispute the notability and I don't think news blogs, a type of coverage that must rate below local nightly news coverage in establishing the notability of a subject establish it. This is routine news coverage in a low-profile, transient medium. The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 16:09, 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) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is the book content (very bottom of p237, and then 238) 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)

Okay, the existing references are fine for explaining what the incident was about and who was involved. I don't think there's any point referencing articles in cultural studies that use the incident as an anecdote.
The references describe the company's response well enough. I'd say drop the stuff about Absolut's response and we're done. The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Do you mean just dropping the quote? Or the entire "response" paragraph? I could agree to the quote, but I think the sentences just before it are needed for WP:NPOV Gaijin42 (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, what about the current version? The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
While certainly the controversy was more pronounced in conservative circles, and should be called out, I do not support wording that makes it exclusively so (and many of the sources do not make that distinction). I'm ok with the other changes tho. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
How about "American conservatives and Mickey Kaus"? But seriously, I'd be satisfied with just "some Americans," I'll change it back. The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I suspect "American bloggers" is probably better than "American consumers," as we have little sourcing of the claim that any of the reaction came from actual Absolut vodka drinkers and quite a lot that it came from bloggers and their readership. The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think I'm good with the current version Gaijin42 (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)