Talk:Bohemian-style absinth

This article's title, and the phrase "Czech style absinth" that also appears in it, should be hyphenated:

Bohemian-style absinth Czech-style absinth

NPOV dispute

This article seems to be written from the point of view of someone who really doesn't think much of Czech style absinth. It is compared to 'authentic' absinth, or it's described as creating a 'minor' simulation. These loaded words are quite pernicious, and rather than helping provide a balanced point of view, they simply serve to give a subtle (or not so subtle) feeling that the one true form of absinth is the French style. Crossbottle (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There is something historically known as absinthe. It differs greatly from this distilled spirit that was created recently and takes the name. If they were related then this entry would not exist - it would be a paragraph within the main article. Just as there is a difference between authentic cheese and Cheese Wiz. 99.151.186.178 (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I've misread the instructions; I thought the idea was that you tagged the article and then listed your concerns on the discussion page, which I've now done twice and found my concerns dismissed and my tag reverted. Despite this, it's not a major issue and I do not wish to get into a cycle of constantly undoing someone else's changes.

As you bring up 'Cheez Wiz', something we thankfully don't have in the UK, I'll continue your analogy - if you check the Wikipedia Cheez Wiz article it is careful to explain about the product in its own right - it's a processed cheese product, for example, not a 'minor simulation' of 'authentic' cheese. It doesn't take pains to explain that users of 'authentic cheese' feel that 'Cheez Wiz' is a pale imitation that merely uses the word cheese to cash in on the rich heritage and flavour of 'authentic' cheese, however true an individual may feel this to be, and doesn't quote sellers of 'authentic' cheese denigrating 'Cheez Wiz' to support this point. Returning to the absinth article, this currently spends more time explaining how Czech-style absinth is inferior to 'authentic' absinthe than it does explaining about Czech-style absinth in its own right. For that reason, I don't feel it gives a balanced viewpoint. I should mention that the edits over the past couple of days have moved closer to a NPOV, but there is still some way to go. I'm loathe to edit the article directly, because those currently involved in editing article seem rather quick to undo edits which don't agree with their own point of view. Crossbottle (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no problems with removing any direct expressions of superiority or inferiority, there is no conflict there and will support any edit to clean up the entry in that regard. There does however exist an "authentic" historical drink of a similar name, absinthe. That it differs from this product created in the 1990's is clear - it is the very foundation for the existence of separate entries. I guess my question to you is, what specific prose do you object to at this point? Is it restricted only to the use of the term "authentic"?99.141.245.216 (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

One of the big problems is that most 'bohemian' style absinth does not market on or talk about its own merits. It is often marketed as "Authentic" and "just like the real thing." The wikipedia article should address these claims. -- Ari (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia is necessarily the best place for a subjective "compare and contrast" exploration on the relative utility of the two products. That the product is not "just like the real thing" is, obviously, the justification and basis upon which it has its own separate entry in the encyclopedia. 99.141.245.216 (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure it is, especially when it's not subjective. Bohemian absinth producers make claims that are known to be false based on citable evidence, thus the wikipedia article should point out that claims made about bohemian absinth are inaccurate and explain why. The article should also do this because it is common (whether accidental or on purpose) to confuse the two products. -- Ari (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You have an excellent point, well sourced and clearly written it could bring quite a bit to our understanding of the entry. Do you have any links that help illuminate the subject? 99.141.245.216 (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course this page is just a thinly veiled attack on Czech products. There is nothing that can be done to stop this kind of attack actually and Wikipedia has long been aware of the concerns of the Czech alcohol industry. The attacks hereon are nothing compared to the terrible allegations made elesewhere about Czech producers, which have caused enormous personal upset and harm. It is a waste of time trying to engage with the editors as their agenda is very clear. "I understand that that particular Wiki page is maintained and guarded by knowledgeable members of WS and FV" Sep 8 2008, 09:50 PM Source: Wormwood Society. It is good that Crossbottle has made the point, but there is nothing that can be done, believe me! "maintained and guarded"

What Radomil Hill said about the product being produced in the 1920s is correct. The evidence exists in Czech, nobody wishes to publish it due to the hatred and anger that comes from a US based "absinthe society" It is too stressful to get involved in ugly exchanges with these people. Thanks anyway, Crossbottle. RedSalmon (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to finish, I would like to give some context. Here is a statement by Gwydion Stone, owner of The Wormwood Society (see above): "The creation of "absinth" made from inferior alcohol and a huge marketing hoax was born in the newly capitalist, and under-regulated Czech Republic during the last two years of the last century, i.e. 1998, so they could sell fake, bright turquoise "absinth" to gullible tourists. Part of that hoax was using the frat-party stunt of lighting the sugar on fire in the spoon to mimic heroin preparation" (Source: http://seattlest.com) This statment is wrong and distasteful, but typical of the sort of thing that comes from American "experts" aimed at the Czechs. The history of the first bottle of absinth produced in the Czech lands in the late 20th century is well documented. Nobody was trying to sell "fake" products or mimic heroin preparation. The Hill family and the well known individual who ordered the first bottle have repeatedly stated the history. This disgraceful allegation about "hoax" and "fake" hopefully offers some context as to the genesis of this nasty little "poison page" on Wikipedia RedSalmon (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back. Yep you are completely right, it is all a conspiracy to destroy the Czech Republic, which is why,

• Editors here have started using "bohemian" instead of "Czech" since "bohemian" absinth comes from other places than just the Czech Republic. This drive to find a correct name was started by the editors of the wikipedia absinthe page.
• Use the term Bohemian because there are a few absinthe products coming out of the Czech Republic.
• Wikipedia talk pages are not a place to vent concerns and opinions about other websites but to discuss improving the article, they are not forums.
• If the evidence exists that bohemian absinth was produced as bohemian absinth in the past I would be interested in it, unfortunately so far no one has brought it forward.
• If anyone would like to see a repeat of this argument and its rebuttal please visit the archives of the absinthe page. -- Ari (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said it is too stressful to engage with American "experts" but thank you, as always, for telling us our place, Ari. The fact that the article uses a photograph of a Czech anise rich product is somewhat ironic, and indicative of the level of expertise, regarding historic and modern facts, that exists here. This page is a part of a well documented effort organised by a few individuals mostly in America. Thank you for allowing me to express my opinion on your web page.RedSalmon (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

RedSalmon, since you are not happy with the photograph, perhaps you could suggest an alternative photograph of a range of Bohemian-style absinths? If you could point us towards a photo which can be used in line with Wikipedia copyright policies, I think it would help the article. Alanmoss (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not care about the photograph, I am past caring, it just shows the inherent ignorance of the piece. The whole article is biased and includes none of the interesting history regarding the rebirth of absinth, why the first bottle was produced etc, that readers might like to know. It has a nasty tone which is quite usual, as The Wormwood Society (who authored this page - Ari is a board member of course) regularly call products from this country "swill". It contains allegations and claims that the product is not "authentic" as well. It is intended to inflict economic damage on Czech producers and that is all. You should know Alan, as your MySpace page makes similar allegations:

In the 1990's, Czech products called absinth, but with very little similarity, first appeared outside the Czech Republic. While there are signs that some of these may be more focused on product quality, most play on the alleged high thujone content and claim a false French or Swiss heritage. Some suggest suggest that it should be flamed and burnt, showing how little respect some Czech distillers have for their own creations, and building a negative image for the whole category.

Now real absinthe has returned, much of it from its original birthplace in the Val-de-Travers region of Switzerland and in Pontarlier, just over the border. There is an ever-expanding group of absinthe lovers all over the world, drinking absinthe for its taste and not for its effects.''

http://groups.myspace.com/realabsinthe

"false heritage"..."real absinthe" the same message as we find here. Hardly surprising as you are invloved in this campaign, an organised campaign that has been very suceesful as well I might add. I do not know if you know this, but there is even recent evidence of people in America approaching European distributors and using this page as an "authority" in trying to persuade them not to buy Czech made products. A really evil development. By the way, Alan, I do not know what you mean on your real absinthe website by "outside the Czech Republic" as the first bottle was produced for a famous theatre troupe in Prague. RedSalmon (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why these NPOV concerns aren't being addressed. This article is clearly biased. Ution:noitu (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Please point out where the article is biased. Unfortunately I have tried to get RedSalmon to do the same but he seems to not want to talk about the actual article. -- Ari (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If you find a negative statement about Bohemian absinth, it is compared to 'absinthe'. See 'Bohemian-style absinth lacks much of the herbal profile and density of authentic absinthe' for an example. It's already mentioned much further up above in the cheesewiz discussion. If absinth is so different to absinthe, then it must be discussed on its own merits and the constant comparisons to 'authentic' absinthe must be relegated to a single paragraph comparing this. There is no NPOV here - the article is written by absinthe lovers, edited by absinth lovers, then re-edited by an entire army of absinthe-obsessed myopics. Go back and read your own comments, Ari - you must step back from this article and admit a conflict of views here. Be happy with your views, but let redsalmon and other people who know more of absinth than you write this article with facts that do not require constant comparison to the 'authentic' article. For me, and many others, absinth is just as authentic as 'absinthe', just not what you want us to believe and agree to. I'm disappointed in you. Ution:noitu (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Such comparisons are necessary only because producers/sellers of bohemian-style 'absinth' use deceptive claims of French and Swiss heritage to seduce buyers, and yet these products are devoid of attributes recognizable as traditional French and Swiss absinthes. These 'absinths' are hereby being judged against their own claims, and the misrepresentations are both glaring and widespread.

Five minutes of browsing yielded the following examples:

"Manufactured according to the original French recipe ..." - http://www.absint.net/products

"The recipe dates back to 1792 when a Swiss pharmacist ..." - http://www.absint.net/products/king_of_spirits

"This classic absinthe is made from the original Swiss recipe ..." - http://www.absinthesupply.net/products/zele-premium.html

"Initially derived from an original Swiss recipe ..." - http://www.absinthesupply.net/products/lisse.html

"... this is the absinthe Picasso and Earnest Hemmingway acclaimed." - http://www.absinthesupply.net/products/king-of-spirits.html

"Manufactured according to the original French recipe ..." - http://www.absinthesupply.net/products/staroplzenecky.html

None of these 'absinths' described herein are made according to traditional methods, none louche, and none offer a flavor profile recognizable as a traditional French or Swiss absinthe by any stretch of the imagination. This quick collection of false and misleading claims is from just two websites. There are many, many more to be found elsewhere. This is a rampant problem.

If/When a time comes that such claims are withdrawn in favor of truthful, accurate product descriptions, there will no longer be an issue. Until then, false advertising and deception as a serious consumer concern, and this problem is significant and widespread enough to be worthy of emphasis in the article. Vapeur (talk) 00:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)vapeur

Do you speak Czech? I suppose not. If you did you would be able to read the numerous antiquarian books that exist with recipes for spirits. As you may be aware absint (absinth, Hapsburg era) was hugely popular during the First Republic cafe culture and also in the 1940s in Prague. In texts from the First Republic era (and slightly before) there are recipes for "francouzskeho" "svycarskeho" and another class you do not know about as well. These recipes for "francouzskeho" French and "svycarskeho" Swiss absinthe were used, as I understand, during the early days of the absinthe renaissance (1990s) when the spirit was illegal in most of Europe, but not in the Czech Republic. Therefore they may not be the same as Duplais, De Brevans (i), but your claims of deception, which is an intentional act, are nothing more than libel. It is no surprise to me that the rhetoric, and allegations of deception, are exactly the same as that of The Wormwood Society, which is of course where you have come from.

Further, you have falsely claimed on the main absinthe article "Absinthe is historically described as a distilled.." using these sources (i) as proof. Serious historians, including those at the Charles University in Prague, know that oil mixes were also very common in the past and these products that you attack hereon are every bit as traditional / original as those that you champion. If you wish to use Wikipedia to abuse your regional competitors that is up to you, and there is nothing I can do about it, these pages are controlled by an interest group. I have long been surprsied that Wikipedia allow this sort of thing with no oversight whatsoever. Czechs have tried to contribute to Wikipedia in the past and then had their entries deleted, usually by Ari (a board member of The Wormwood Society). I have been told that this page that we are discussing here has been used when contacting existing distributors of Czech products by email and attempting to sell "real absinthe", whether this has resulted in the loss of export orders is as yet unclear. RedSalmon (talk) 10:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks have no place here, and are subject to deletion. I do not speak Czech, nor do I come from the Wormwood Society, but this is irrelevant. The advertising claims quoted above are plainly, publicly visible. Experts and amateurs alike unanimously agree that contemporary Czech offerings are unrecognizable as anything remotely consistent with 'the original Swiss recipe' and/or 'the absinthe Picasso and Hemingway acclaimed' (Pernod Fils), in direct contrast to said claims. The evidence is overwhelming to the point of incontrovertibility. Nevertheless, the article explains this disparity without resorting to the use of the words "deception" and/or "deceive", so your accusation therewith is unfounded.

Your comments as to a historic Czech absinthe culture remain largely unsupported by visible, verifiable references and records. If proposed supporting material were brought to light, then it would be considered. I remain confident that such material would neither explain nor exonerate however the ongoing, misleading advertising practices associated with the products in question. Vapeur (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)vapeur

Duplicative and Conflicting Prose

The following two sentences are both repetitive and in conflict with each other:

It is usually not produced by means of distillation; instead, high-proof alcohol is cold-mixed with herbal essences (oils) and colorants. [2]

Some of the most expensive Czech products go to the extent of macerating wormwood inside the bottle; this procedure is quite similar to that of an absinthe kit.[5]

The repetition is clear, the conflict is found in Usually Vs. Some.

Both are supported by marketing materials from a commercial site which has a vested financial interest in selling and mythologizing the product. There is no neutral support for the specious implied claim that "expensive" or by implication higher quality product is derived from soaking wood in alcohol. As it is non-controversial and well documented that this product is commonly produced through maceration I've retained the first sentence and removed the last. 99.141.245.216 (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry -- there is NO conflict between "usually not produced" and "some [are produced]". Wahrmund (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course there is. In the first example, we state that it is usually not produced by distillation - we state that the norm, the standard state, the majority or expected method is by maceration. We then turn this completely on its head and state that "some of the most expensive" are macerated. It cannot at the same time be both the common method of production AND the uncommon, rare and expensive method. 99.141.245.216 (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

fire ritual

A lot of people dont bother with water at all. Soak a teaspoon of suger in absinthe, light it, wait for the flame to go out naturally then dissolve it in the absinthe, then neck it. perfect. douts (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bohemian-style absinth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930205559/http://www.praguepost.com/articles/2006/04/26/worthy-of-their-name.php to http://www.praguepost.com/articles/2006/04/26/worthy-of-their-name.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080410002141/http://www.absint.net:80/lor to http://www.absint.net/lor
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080220124521/http://www.absint.net:80/products/king_of_spirits to http://www.absint.net/products/king_of_spirits
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lafeeabsinthe.com/acatalog/lafeeabsinthbohemian.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080303134027/http://www.lafeeabsinthe.com:80/bohemian.php to http://www.lafeeabsinthe.com/bohemian.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)