Talk:Manhattan (cocktail): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Hayford Peirce |
imported>Robert W King |
||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
:I stuck it in because it's prominently featured in the Wikipedia article and I tried tracking down a source for it. Couldn't find any: it seems to be an Internet thingee that got itself into Wikipedia, from which it has spread like a weed. But you think it ought to be removed? [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 14:52, 15 June 2007 (CDT) | :I stuck it in because it's prominently featured in the Wikipedia article and I tried tracking down a source for it. Couldn't find any: it seems to be an Internet thingee that got itself into Wikipedia, from which it has spread like a weed. But you think it ought to be removed? [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 14:52, 15 June 2007 (CDT) | ||
::I think it should get the axe, because it's speculation. If there was some written lore or something to indicate this, it would be a different story. But given Wikipedia's history of questionable accuracy I wouldn't rely on it and pull it. Plus, it really seems like opinion. It seems like one of those things where a guy worked it into the article because he was called a sissy for drinking one. I think there's an unwritten drinking rule that the more fruity a drink is, the less "masculine" it is. --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 14:57, 15 June 2007 (CDT) |
Revision as of 13:57, 15 June 2007
Workgroup category or categories | Food Science Workgroup [Please add or review categories] |
Article status | Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete |
Underlinked article? | Yes |
Basic cleanup done? | Yes |
Checklist last edited by | Hayford Peirce 14:37, 15 June 2007 (CDT) |
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.
"Drinking Man's Cocktail"
Last I heard, the Manhattan isn't really a "man's" drink. I'm not sure I'd put this claim on there unless one could substiantiate it. --Robert W King 14:42, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
- I stuck it in because it's prominently featured in the Wikipedia article and I tried tracking down a source for it. Couldn't find any: it seems to be an Internet thingee that got itself into Wikipedia, from which it has spread like a weed. But you think it ought to be removed? Hayford Peirce 14:52, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
- I think it should get the axe, because it's speculation. If there was some written lore or something to indicate this, it would be a different story. But given Wikipedia's history of questionable accuracy I wouldn't rely on it and pull it. Plus, it really seems like opinion. It seems like one of those things where a guy worked it into the article because he was called a sissy for drinking one. I think there's an unwritten drinking rule that the more fruity a drink is, the less "masculine" it is. --Robert W King 14:57, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
Categories:
- Food Science Category Check
- General Category Check
- Category Check
- Advanced Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- Food Science Advanced Articles
- Food Science Nonstub Articles
- Food Science Internal Articles
- Developed Articles
- Food Science Developed Articles
- Developing Articles
- Food Science Developing Articles
- Stub Articles
- Food Science Stub Articles
- External Articles
- Food Science External Articles
- Food Science Underlinked Articles
- Underlinked Articles
- Food Science Cleanup
- General Cleanup
- Cleanup