Talk:Gibson (cocktail)

except for this and shit

This entire article is false, the whole thing, like not one thing in this article is accurate.

ill be editing this soon.Themastermixologist (talk) 10:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Themastermixologist Your comment above is both incorrect, misspelled, uncouth and contains gratuitous profanity. It has no place in Wikipedia, and I resent that you have placed it here. You've spelled the contraction "I'll" incorrectly, and it's obvious that from 2015 to now, you have promptly followed up on your promise to "edit" the article (Luckily for the rest of us). Alpine Joy (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

That appears to have been the last edit made by Themastermixologist. I can only guess that they were actually ill and have been unable to edit since then. I hope they begin feeling better soon. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Vodka?

Is a Gibson made with vodka instead of gin, still a Gibson? --76.115.67.114 (talk) 06:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The article says this drink is "a cousin of the ubiquitous martini, distinguished mostly by garnishing with an onion instead of an olive". If you make a martini with vodka instead of gin, it is called a vodka martini, so if you make a Gibson with vodka instead of gin, I suppose you could legitimately call that a vodka Gibson. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 10:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

An onion walks into a bar...

What's a cocktail onion and what was it doing in a bar?

All of the origin stories for the Gibson seem to be based upon it resembling a Martini, but distinguished by swapping the olive for an onion. So why did the first Gibson-mixing bartender have onions to hand? What else were they used for first? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Andy Dingley Andy, good point! And just the kind of detective type question I like to raise. Thank you! Anyone know the answer to Andy's & my question? Alpine Joy (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Charles Dana Gibson

This information is not in dispute, and its inclusion in this article is extraneous. I hope a moderator will delete the following text:

“But, Charles Dana Gibson was certainly the artist who created the Gibson Girl illustrations, popular from the 1890s to around the first world war.” Alpine Joy (talk) 07:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@User:Alpine Joy, I made some clarifying edits, and eliminated the offending sentence (although I did add some color to the first mention of Charles Dana Gibson). AuH2ORepublican (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@AuH2ORepublican Thank you. I'm not certain what I found so objectionable when I wrote before, but in my opinion it reads very well with whatever you did to it. So, thanks again! Alpine Joy (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Pop culture section?

I find this superfluous. Do we really need a list of every trivial mention of a Gibson in a book or movie? We'd surely run out of energy before it was completed. I'd like to ask other editors how they'd feel about just excising it. If there are any truly important pop culture references, we can incorporate them into the text of the article. — e. ripley\^talk 04:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Given that Gibsons are not mentioned in movies or TV shows very often (unlike, for example, martinis), I don't think that it is superfluous to include a section with popular-culture references to the drink. And such rare pop-culture references may be the way that many people have become acquainted with the Gibson--I certainly had never heard of the drink until I saw "North by Northwest"), so I think that it is pertinent to the article. Of course, I'd be interested in hearing what other editors think. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

There's a significance bar to pass, I think, without it just looking like cruft (great movie!). Take a stroll through this and let me know what you think. It's just an essay as opposed to a policy or even a guideline but it enumerates what seems like some decent best practices for which kinds of mentions are notable enough for inclusion and which aren't, and why. I was thinking about getting this page in shape for a try at making it a good article and have been pondering what needs doing. Want to help? — e. ripley\^talk 20:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

By the criteria given in the article that you linked, you are correct that the mentions of the Gibson in popular culture would not merit inclusion in the article. Of course, following such criteria would strike the "in popular culture" section of most Wikipedia articles, so there might be a reason why such essay has not been adopted as a policy or even a guideline. As I wrote before, it is the fact that Gibsons are rarely mentioned in popular culture that make such examples notable; I certainly would not include such minor mentions of an Old-Fashioned in an article on that particular cocktail (and would limit it to, say, its ubiquity in "Mad Men" and it playing an important role in the original "Father of the Bride"), but the Gibson isn't an Old-Fashioned or a martini.

As for turning the article into a good article, I'm not sure what could be done to accomplish that. The various theories as to its name already have been covered (BTW, I like your recent edits in that section), as is the official recipe and historical differences from the martini. Apart from that and the controversial "in popular culture" section, what else should be in an encyclopedia article about the Gibson? AuH2ORepublican (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Totally fair comment re: what impact it would have on a lot of other articles. I think I generally favor highlighting within the article's narrative significant pop culture references, and then forking the rest into its own list, which can be built out more extensively if people so desire without unbalancing the rest of the article. For instance, I did something similar with Cecil Hotel (Los Angeles) and List_of_deaths_and_violence_at_the_Cecil_Hotel. When I first started working on it, it was overrun by a list of every death or strange thing that happened there. I think it turned out well, but I admit that approach may not work for this article, especially as the list is much smaller. As for what to do to make it a good article, we don't have to try to create information that just isn't there, but a review of published sources other than news articles may yield some interesting history that could be added. Of course it needs to be well-written and well-cited. But a good portion of the good article criteria are actually about format -- is everything sourced adequately, are your images fair use, are you using an appropriate referencing format, etc. I took one article through the process and was very proud of how it turned out. I'd welcome any collaboration with you, if you are interested. — e. ripley\^talk 18:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, if reformating the information that already is there would be enough to make it into a good article, then your recent edits are an excellent start. As for my help, I'm flattered, but I'm afraid I'm not very good with graphics, nor do I have much time for research. But I can help with phrasing and grammar if you'd like some assistance. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• I'm generally in favour of such sections, but tend to prune them. Does either the subject or object of the reference have substantial influence on the other? Is it a repeated reference, i.e. a theme? So Bond gets into the martini and The Dude into the White Russian (unusually, for its influence in both directions), but I'm not seeing any of them here for the gibson. North by Northwest? Maybe, but it's too long since I last saw it. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I can attest to the fact that Roger Thornhill ordering a Gibson in the club-car scene in North by Northwest was not a significant part of the plot of the movie; no one commented on his choice of drink, and he didn't choke on the onion or anything. As I wrote above, the Gibson's role in the movie is not akin to Bond and his martinis or even to the Father of the Bride not being able to talk to anyone at the engagement party because he had volunteered to prepare the cocktails (and had pre-mixed a few dozen martinis) and everyone kept ordering (time-consuming) Old-Fashioneds. That being said, it is one of the very few references to the Gibson in pop culture, which is why I believe that it (and the other rare instances listed in the article) is notable and should be kept in the article. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 15:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

It's interesting rhetorically that the argument is essentially -- there are so few of them, let's keep track. I would propose, then, that we make that clear within the list, meaning to point it out. The Gibson isn't often referenced in pop culture, making the few instances when it has noteworthy ... then move into some of the items. — e. ripley\^talk 20:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Gibson vs Martini?

Neither of these are well-known in the UK (we still just don't do cocktails) but the Martini does at least have brand recognition (thankyou 007) even if no understanding of it.

How well-known is the Gibson in the US? Are they recognised? Are the differences from a Martini known? Could you order one in a bar? Would they know how to make it, and would you actually get a recognisable one?

Is there any recognition of Gibsons in the UK? Outside of hipster cocktail nerd circles, I think you'd be lucky to find one anywhere. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

You definitely can get Gibsons in bars in the U.S., and most bartenders know exactly how to mix them; can't tell you about the UK, though. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

It certainly seems to mostly be an American drink, but my personal experience is that most bartenders know how to make them in the states. — e. ripley\^talk 20:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)