Talk:Carlo Rossi (wine)

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)[reply]

Carlo Rossi may well deserve a page on wikipedia, but this article is horrendous. Poor spelling, grammar and syntax, let alone the NPOV problems and inclusion of various 'recipes' (doesn't the wikipedia foundation run a wikirecipes service that could take on this burden?) all indicate the poor quality of this article. It needs a serious overhaul. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.153.103.182 (talk • contribs) .

I disagree with great emphasis. Wikipedia is a site promoting general beliefs of all things and how they are being used, if it is possible to use such an item. This is the use of the items these authors have found. Don't let your banal nature supercede your banality of character. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Djramey (talk • contribs) .

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)[reply]

Recent vandalism

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)[reply]

I think there is some relevance to an Encyclopedia to have different viewpoints as to the culture surrounding a subject, product or item. Placing the subject in a context certainly provides a richness that goes beyond the objective, stark description.

In the case of Carlo Rossi wine, the description of the wine gave a greater picture of the fun, whimsical nature of those who enjoy the wine. While many who may be familiar with the wine may have their own opinions as to the wine's flavor, there is certainly reason to provide a context for Carlo Rossi that suggests a playful, fun atmosphere. I don't believe that the Wikipedia entry, as is, describes the wine in any way that wouldn't lead many people to believe that the wine is disgusting, cheap, and, based on the E-40 and Plow songs, generally enjoyed by an unpleasant crowd.

The nature of Carlo Rossi wine that promotes adventure, solves monetary desperation, and creative enjoyment certainly has a place on Wikipedia.com, as do the many varieties of ways that people have found to enjoy the wine and the situations and challenges that Carlo Rossi rises to meet.

24.145.210.177 16:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]