Talk:Manhattan (cocktail): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Hayford Peirce (added checkbox) |
imported>Subpagination Bot m (Add {{subpages}} and remove checklist (details)) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{subpages}} | ||
== "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. --[[User:Robert W King|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? [[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) | ||
| | :::Hehe, some of those macho guys oughta check out one of my zombies, which has both lime and grapefruit juice in it and would knock the average steelmill worker flat on his ass! Anyway, I'll get rid of it. It has a nice ring to it, but, as you say, it's just Wikipedia baloney.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 15:30, 15 June 2007 (CDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 14:08, 10 November 2007
"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)
- Hehe, some of those macho guys oughta check out one of my zombies, which has both lime and grapefruit juice in it and would knock the average steelmill worker flat on his ass! Anyway, I'll get rid of it. It has a nice ring to it, but, as you say, it's just Wikipedia baloney.... Hayford Peirce 15:30, 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)