Talk:Carlo Rossi (wine)

message: There are quite a few pages linking to Carlo Rossi which currently describes a wine. The wine article should be moved to Carlo Rossi (wine), and this page should get or become a dab notice (and maybe an article about one of the Carlo Rossi people). Rl 19:21, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is a site promoting general beliefs of all things and how they are being used... ... Hmmm... actually, no, Wikipedia is not such a site. It is a free encyclopedia. One would expect an encyclopedia to explain that wine is a product of fermenting grape juice, but one would not expect an encyclopedia to provide party drink recipes. Gregmg
---------------------
Most of this reads like an *ad* for Carlo Rossi wine and that part is totally unacceptable. Therefore, I have removed the offending text. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.163.88.33 (talk • contribs) .
_____________________________________________
Beginning with the third paragraph, there is nothing neutral about this article. The purpose of including quotes from the company website is unclear as is the naming of various students who have mixed some beverages together and called themselves inventors. This material may be appropriate for a company newsletter, college newspaper, or other venue, but not for Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.163.88.33 (talk • contribs) .
----
Wow, this article was in need of some serious help. I've removed everything that has no place in an encyclopedia article, as well as the NPOV dispute header, and I added the wine-stub footer. Please review the various style guides before reverting any of my edits. Thanks! Gregmg 03:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

message: When I first reviewed this article, it certainly appeared to me that someone was having a bit of fun with us, but in keeping with the policies and guidelines of this site, I assumed good faith. I removed comments that were non-notable, facts that were unverifiable, and edits that were at best, non-encyclopedic. It seems however, that my first inclination was correct. Someone was in fact having a bit of fun with us. Someone reverted my edits and I in turn reverted theirs. I don't think there's any other way to describe the anonymous person's edits but to call them vandalism.  There are several avenues for dealing with this.  If this anonymous party or anyone else genuinely thinks that pouring Sangria over snow is notable and encyclopedic, let's discuss further on this page. Thanks. Gregmg 23:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. The article is short, but I just don't see how it places Carlo Rossi in a negative light. In any case, there are many edits that could be made to address your concerns, and I'd encourage you to be bold and take a stab at it. However, any inclusion of an alleged invention of a party drink needs to be verifiable and the drink itself needs to be notable.  The Harvey Wallbanger is a prime example of a notable drink. You can go into any bar in the world and order one and they will know exactly what you are talking about. There are many other examples... Long Island Ice Tea, Martini, etc. The Rossi bomb and the Rossi slushi haven't yet risen to that level of notariety and therefore, do not deserve mention in an encyclopedia article.  Ultimately, it isn't for me to say what Wikipedia is or is not, others have already done that. I'd encourage you to review the various style guides before trying to take this article into a non-encyclopedic direction.  Gregmg 16:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave this some more thought and poked around a bit... I think the Mountain Dew article provides a good example of how your concerns could be addressed within the context of an encyclopedia article. That article provides a great deal of information on the history of the beverage, place in pop culture, etc., while remaining objective and encyclopedic. Gregmg 23:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent vandalism