Talk:Budweiser

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Budweiser (Anheuser-Busch))
Jump to: navigation, search

Requests for comment[edit]

The article is not neutral, Historically "Budweiser" comes from the town of České Budějovice, the name "Budweiser" should not be used solely as disambiguation for the Anheuser–Busch brewed Beer! The title should be moved from Budweiser -> Budweiser (Anheuser–Busch) , the current title has a bias towards US American readers.

Off flavors comment[edit]

"...giving it more time to reabsorb and process green beer flavors, such as acetaldehyde and diacetyl, that Anheuser-Busch believes are off-flavors which detract from overall drinkability..."

It is not debated that those chemicals are off flavors at all. There are no styles where acetaldehyde (green apple) flavor is acceptable, and only a handful of beer styles where diacetyl is acceptable (always in very small amounts). You could consult the Beer Judge Certification program style guide (www.bjcp.org) as a source for desired flavors in beer.

I only say all this because I think the clause"anheuser-busch believes..." should be removed since it implies that only AB considers them flaws and they are otherwise not generally considered flaws. Seems almost biased against AB. You could completely remove that clause and still keep the entire meaning of the rest of the statement. 76.100.114.214 (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Meaning?[edit]

"The Czech Budweiser is sold in some countries as Budejovicky Budvar but is known as Budweiser throughout." Thoughout what or where? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.225.37.107 (talk) 05:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Budweiser beverage delivery truck Romulus Michigan.JPG Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:Budweiser beverage delivery truck Romulus Michigan.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

I believe this article may have been vandalized. I believe someone replaced Adolphus Busch with Jack Burrell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.119.143 (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

File:A bottle of Budweiser.JPG Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:A bottle of Budweiser.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

hey,30% or 80% rice ?[edit]

I remember a few years ago is 80% rice , why 30% now ? Anheuser Busch was one of them. They survived by converting to cereal beer made from non-fermentable grains like rice. Anheuser still makes its Budweiser from 80% rice, unlike the traditional all-malted barley beer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.111.235.43 (talk) 07:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You really need a citation for that. Any beer with 80% rice would be virtually unfermentable. Rice has almost no sugar so it would be next to impossible to make a ~4% abv beer with 80% adjunct 76.100.114.214 (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The makers of sake and other rice wines would disagree that rice is unfermentable. Rice and corn used in the production of beer, and all other alcohol production, are reduced to their starch components and combined with enzymes to produce sugars. That sugar is then fermented with the rest of the mash and yeast. MaximZero (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok Rice 101. Non-malted adjuncts such as rice or maize are used in many International lagers outside of Germany, and particularly in American mainstream beers. Miller uses maize. Malted barley contains enzymes called Amylase (Alpha and Beta) that are released on mashing in hot water at the brewery and convert the starches in the malt to fermentable sugars. Most malts have enough spare Amylases to also convert extra starches to sugars. The adjuncts are boiled to a mush - called cooker mash - and added to the main malted barley mash where they, being mostly starch, are converted by the spare enzymes into fermentables. This started in the USA well over a hundred years ago to dilute the proteins found in malts from the six-row barley traditional in American Brewing. These extra proteins were producing unwelcome hazes in the finished beer, at a time when glassware became generally affordable, and although modern malts overcome this problem, the use of cereal adjuncts has continued, this being part of the expected flavour and body of the brews. Around 30% adjucts would be fairly normal, according to the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica 50% or more could be used in the USA back then. 80% just wouldn't work, so as posted above a citation would be welcome. The article seems to be a bit confusing as it could be read that the use of adjuncts began during Prohibition, not so. --MichaelGG (talk) 06:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Italics[edit]

Why is Budweiser italicized throughout the article? Yes, it is a foreign word, but we don't italicize other brand names. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Good question, it's half italics, half not italics. CTJF83 15:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I went ahead an changed it. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

"Even Adolphus Busch didn't like it.." Is this credible?[edit]

This comment, located under the "Beer" section, cites this article, but the article does not cite any credible source (it actually has no citation.) The article, from Salon.com, says, "Adolphus Busch, the dynasty’s founder, called his beer “dot schlop” and drank wine instead.", but I cannot find any information beyond this (except for internet hearsay.) Unless this is a credible claim, and someone has a more credible source, I think that comment should be taken out because it adds little to the article and cannot be verified. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.18.97.24 (talk) 07:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC) *Edit - forgot to sign* 99.18.97.24 (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I would vote in favor of removing the comment. 76.100.114.214 (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a slander. Busch may well have preferred to drink wine (so what) but the "dot schlop" comment was really a *self-deprecating joke* that he made when a dinner companion ordered a Budweiser in his presence. He wasn't going around secretly cackling about getting the rubes to drink "dot schlop." He was *making a joke.* (the source is *American Mercury*, 1929, quoted [here.](http://www.beerhistory.com/library/holdings/kingofbeer3.shtml)
Yeah, Bud is quite bland, but anyone who thinks you can hide bad ingredients or technique in such a bland beer doesn't know anything about brewing. It's a boring beer made very well. 99.249.15.40 (talk) 04:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Adding information about cans under the "Containers and packaging" section[edit]

The current article goes into some depth about the Budweiser bottle, but almost entirely ignores other types of packaging. I was planning on adding information specifically related to Budweiser can packaging. Much of this information will be tailored to look at the latest can design change that occurred in 2011, as well as the reasons and possible consequences of the change. Also, I plan on adding a chart, similar to that under the "Bottle" section, for the can. Zlaval (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

As long as you provide proper sourcing sounds like a plan to me. CTJF83 11:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Brazilian's Budweiser bill=[edit]

RE: 2014 FIFA World Cup

After numerous deaths in football stadiums, Brazil passed a law in 2003 outlawing alcohol sales in stadiums. FIFA demanded that Brazil allow alcohol sales at the World Cup because Budweiser is a major World Cup sponsor and so it can make Budweiser the "Official Beer of the FIFA World Cup", a role it has played since 1986. In response, Brazil passed a law paving the way for alcohol sales in the World Cup, nicknamed the "Budweiser Bill".[1][2]

How can this be added to the article? Should it be added to Anheuser-Busch? Wholesomegood (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. This is a difficult close, but I find a rough consensus to move this article to Budweiser. Effectively, three options have been considered: 1) the proposed move (7 in favor), 2) an alternative option moving/restoring the concept dab (now located here) to Budweiser (5 in favor), and 3) leaving the dab page at "Budweiser" (43 in favor). As such, a majority of all participants favored a change over the status quo, and the proposed move was the best supported of the two changes (I do note that a few participants favoring one change specifically opposed the other). I kept the 4 remaining oppose votes in mind, but gave less consideration to those that did not specifically contend with English use. A no consensus close would leave us in a situation comparatively few participants preferred; I find rough consensus in favor of the best supported individual option. Cúchullain t/c 19:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)



– By hit count or by links, the American beer is far and away the primary topic for the English-speaking world. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC) pbp 13:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

  • On the face of it oppose - there's no one topic that outnumbers all others put together. but what is going on here? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, clear primary topic among a collection of also-rans. bd2412 T 15:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Clear cut primary topic. Calidum Talk To Me 15:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Both are big selling beers with very similar names, the current disambiguation works just fine. There is no evidence to suggest that either is the primary topic as search results will bring up both beers in the search results. Also moving the American beer to the article "Budweiser" would be making Wikipedia take sides in the "Budweiser trademark dispute" and Wikipedia should remain neutral on such issues and not favour either side. IJA (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose IJA makes a very good case. WP should remain neutral bearing in mind the long-running trademark dispute. Edwardx (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
A trademark dispute is a poor reason for dictating naming conventions. The dispute is between a large beverage company that gets a lot of hits and is referenced by a lot of other articles; and a smaller beverage company that isn't. pbp 21:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Only one article in the list is called simply "Budweiser", i.e. Budweiser (Anheuser-Busch). The others are partial title matches whose relevance vis-à-vis that Budweiser could be considered less, in the spirit of WP:Partial title match. —  AjaxSmack  01:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per IJA. Instead I suggest that the trademark dispute article be made primary, as the most educational topic. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - While I hate to go against what actually does seem like a fairly clear case of common name, the fairly controversial nature of the topic makes it seem more logical for the Budweiser page to remain a disambiguation page.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Anyone searching with "Budweiser" is most likely, by far, searching for this topic. A hatnote can handle the others. --В²C 00:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Hmm, should we use the first criterion of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which is page views? Or the second one, which is long-term educational significance? Oh wait, either way it's a rout. Strong support as per both criteria. Red Slash 04:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Budweiser should just be turned back into a WP:CONCEPTDAB like it was until July this year. See here for what it looked like and the change into a normal dab. Jenks24 (talk) 08:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree with Jenks24 – revert to that nice broad concept article. Good catch. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Also agree, and comment, beer can be a big part of local culture. We have the relatively small and historic Harveys Brewery near us. If a newer multinational company adopted the same name and took over the Wikipedia name space I would be less than impressed.Gregkaye (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    In this case, however, Anheuser–Busch seems to have taken over the Wikipedia space about 140 years ago. bd2412 T 13:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree with Jenks24 - returning to the July 2014 version would be the best way to deal with this issue. Edwardx (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Some editors want to restore the pre-July 2014 version as a kind of concept DAB. I'm leaving a ping for User:SilkTork since he did some of the July work and moved some of the Budweiser material into Budweiser trademark dispute. He may want to comment here. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • There is a viable argument for which approach is more appropriate: a search for "Budweiser" landing the reader on a standard dab page, or on the article about the beer by Anheuser–Busch with a hat note to a dab page. However, I don't see restoring the trademark dispute article with links to other possible Budweiser targets as appropriate or viable. The argument that the page was a WP:CONCEPTDAB doesn't hold up, as a broad concept article would need to have topics in common, other than similarity of name, enough that an article could be written, such as Football, Supreme court, or Central Asia. The articles in question here do not share the same topic, two are breweries which simply have Budweiser in their name, one is a beer called Budweiser, one is the town Budweis, and one is a trademark dispute - there is no topic or concept in common, simply a loose connection with the name Budweis or Budweiser. Making the trademark dispute the primary topic is not a viable solution as that appears to be the least likely target for a reader putting in a search for Budweiser, and merely delays and confuses the reader who is searching for either the Anheuser–Busch beer (most likely), or for one of the other topics associated with the name (which may include the trademark dispute, but as page hits indicate, is the least likely target). On page hits Budweiser (Anheuser-Busch) with an average monthly hit of 30,000 is the most likely target, and that is more than the combined average of the other articles, which is less than 20,000 a month. All things considered, Budweiser (Anheuser-Busch) meets the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria so a search for "Budweiser" should land the leader on that page, with hat notes pointing to the current dab page which would be renamed as Budweiser (disambiguation). That Wikipedia may be influencing the trademark dispute by making the American beer the primary target is worth considering, and makes one hesitate, however a counter argument could be that by not making what is clearly the primary target the primary topic, we are siding with the German breweries. I think we need to lay aside the politics, and simply follow our own guidelines and common sense - what are most readers looking for when they type in a search for "Budweiser": they are searching for the American beer. Therefore: Support. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Result of the request[edit]

How can be a result of the request move, if no consensus was found? I absolutely agree with IJA and others that both are big selling beers, this move would be making Wikipedia take sides in the "Budweiser trademark dispute" and Wikipedia should always remain neutral. Is it legitimate that if others strongly oppose to perform such a move? Jirka.h23 (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:MR is the proper venue to have it reconsidered; you should speak with the closing admin before going there if you plan to. But the claim about Wikipedia taking sides is bogus. If we decided to not move the page because of that, it would be akin to censorship. Calidum Talk To Me 14:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Jirka.h23, please see my closing comments above. My determination was that there was a solid consensus for a change from the status quo, and of the two discussed options, the proposed move had the most support. It was definitely a difficult discussion to close, and I'm always available to discuss my closes further.--Cúchullain t/c 17:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I completely fail to see how the admin concluded that there was any consensus whatever, let alone one in favour of the move. As I count it, four editors supported the move, five said leave it alone and five said redirect it to the trademark dispute. Four v nine is not a consensus. I intend to go to MR. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Consensus isn't determined by simply counting votes, but rather by the strength and validity of the underlying arguments. Calidum Talk To Me 02:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
John Maynard Friedman, you can count me as sixth, i have completely missed this request. I do strongly oppose to such move, as wiki should stay neutral and not to prioritize any sides of the dispute. Unfortunately, i have no experience with "MR". Could you help to arrange this? Jirka.h23 (talk) 05:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Seventh. There's more world than just the US, and besides, it's Anheuser-Busch that stole the trademark of breweries from a town named literally Budweis. KiloByte (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
MR created, please get involved. Jirka.h23 (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Eighth. Please restore this back to the disambiguation page. SilkTork seems to be biased to move this page in favor of the American brand. 69.116.183.192 (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Content dispute?[edit]

The move review is closed as endorsing the current title. The closing administrator advises us never again using a RM for content disputes. If the dispute is complex, the administrator recommended RFC. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 09:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The move by Cúchullain was based on an assumption that most readers who type "Budweiser" are looking for an American beer. That assumption distorts some of the facts that we have. The European product gets about 20% of the amount of the monthly hits that the American product gets. Obviously the American gets more hits, because of the US market size compared to English-speaking part of the European market; but 20% is nowhere nearly insignificant proportion, and rather makes sense looking at the markets where the products are dominant. However, the crucial point that has seemingly been missed by the participants of the discussion, is that in the United Kingdom and in Ireland, the only product labeled as "Budweiser" is the European Budweiser Budvar, as it is the sole owner of the "Budweiser" trademark in the EU; and so in the UK and Ireland the American Anheuser-Busch product is not a Budweiser at all even by law (source). Therefore having the American product under the Budweiser article is grossly misleading for readers from the United Kingdom and Ireland; and has a lesser "educational value" for other readers.
Besides that, Cúchullain made a decision based on the fact that the "majority of all participants favored a change over the status quo". But dividing the participants into 3 groups with 3 goals and calling the previous situation an undesirable status quo is artificially fragmenting the participants who want to stay brand-neutral and oppose having the American product labeled as just "Budweiser". The brand-neutral position was supported by 8 (+me now is 9) and opposed by 7; but still a move towards one brand was executed.
I believe we should remain neutral because the division of what "Budweiser" means is significant even within the English speaking world. I propose that Budweiser redirects to slightly reworked Budweiser (disambiguation) (with added explanation of the meaning of the German word), but at the same time I also support redirecting Budweiser to Budweiser trademark dispute, rather than giving the Budweiser name to one specific brand because that would represent neither the global situation, nor the situation in the English-speaking world but rather just North America.--Der Golem (talk) 03:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree, a redirect to Budweiser (disambiguation) should be the best way. Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Update: "Thanks to the registrations of trademarks Budweiser or Budweiser Budvar, that belong to Budějovický Budvar, ABI cannot use its key brand Budweiser in almost 70 countries." (source)--Der Golem (talk) 06:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, a redirect to Budweiser (disambiguation) is the best solution. Why hasn't this been done yet.69.116.183.192 (talk) 04:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Advertising bias and removal of sourced content[edit]

Comedian Bill Cosby appeared at the Budweiser Gardens in London, Ontario, Canada.

Seems like rather clear violations of Wikipedia's neutrality rules when referenced content is removed about one of Budweiser's sponsors, when a Budweiser venue hosts embattled comedian Bill Cosby -- but lists numerous sponsorships of race car drivers, Clydesdale horses, ad nauseum -- why not include Cosby when it includes all the other sponsorships? Not only that but EVEN talk page commentary is removed -- seems like this page is run by public relations people touting Budweiser and Anheuser-Busch.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

They don't sponsor Cosby. That's the difference. It's undue weight and a coatrack to add nonsense about Cosby's alleged criminal acts on the Budweiser page just because their name is on a building where he performed a show. --Onorem (talk) 12:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Of course Budweiser sponsors Cosby. They own a big venue with the prominent title Budweiser Gardens. It is marketing. At this venue, they host numerous performers and entertainment, all with the idea of the principle of association -- to link, in peoples' minds, the idea of their for-sale beer product with these performers as a way to increase sales; so if the band Metric appears at the Budweiser Gardens, beer drinkers will be positively associated with this music. The word Budweiser is not just a "name on a building" but a PAID choice. When this venue chooses to host events like having embattled comedian Bill Cosby perform at the venue, they are linking the idea of Budweiser + Cosby. There are numerous references to this association here and here which you deleted, which the community might see as a conflict of interest if they think you work for Budweiser or have marketing ties to the parent company or one of its marketing or publicity agencies.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I do not, and never have, worked for Budweiser or anyone affiliated with Budweiser. Please shove the unfounded accusation somewhere dark. Numerous performers and entertainment, yes...so why focus on Cosby? To make Bud look bad or to get more eyes on the Cosby fiasco by adding it to tangentially related articles? --Onorem (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Budweiser is a prominent beer, spends huge $$ on marketing, uses Cosby to sell beer and beer to sell Cosby and this linkage is referenced in reliable sources. Judd Apatow criticized Budweiser for hosting Cosby. Right now, the whole segment seems to be focused on irrelevant Clydesdale horses; when only one line (with two references) was added about the Cosby issue, it got deleted, sure looks like a cover-up to me, and a violation of WP:NPOV.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The Budweiser Events Center is operated by Global Spectrum. Bud has their name on the building. Yes, because they hope for a positive association with the acts that pass through...but to say they sponsor him just isn't accurate, and to single him out and bring his current issues into this article is undue. Who cares what Judd Apatow has to say? It's been a while since I've looked at dispute resolution. Perhaps a 3rd opinion is needed. --Onorem (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request:
I've tried hard to see both sides of the argument here, but this really does seem like a WP:COATRACK. The link between Budweiser and Budweiser Gardens is tenuous at best: the venue is owned by Larimer County and managed by Global Spectrum. I can’t even find any evidence that Budweiser has anything to do with the running of the venue at all. It seems that all they do is pay a fee to have their name over the door. There is no evidence they have any control over which acts appear at the venue. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence that Budweiser even knew that Cosby would be appearing at the venue or that they could do anything to stop him appearing even if they did know. There’s certainly no evidence that Budweiser approved the act. The connection between the venue and Budweiser is so tenuous that the venue isn’t even mentioned in this article. As far as I can tell all we have is that Budweiser paid to have their name put over the door of a venue, and a celebrity who has been accused of a crime appeared at that venue several years later? Is that an accurate summary of what can be establised with reliable soucres? Unless we can show that Budweiser was aware that Cosby was appearing at the venue and had some sort of control of the venue that might have enabled them to prevent that, then there is simply no connection between Budweiser and Cosby. At this stage there is no evidence that anybody working for Budweiser even knows who Bill Cosby is. In summary, my opinion is that this material doesn’t belong here until we get some reliable sources to indicate that someone at Budweiser was aware that Cosby was appearing and approved that appearance. FWIW, I also do not work for Budweiser. I have never even drunk Budweiser. Having lived most of my life in a different hemisphere (both ways) I don’t think I have ever even seen a Budweiser. Mark Marathon (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your view. In terms of processes, I agree that it is probably unlikely that marketing people at Anheuser-Busch had direct control over which performers perform in the venue with the 'Budweiser' label pasted prominently on their site, but if you look at it in terms of results, of course there is a strong association. Anheuser-Busch owns the Budweiser name. They control where the name 'Budweiser' appears. They pay to have their name on a prominent venue which serves alcohol, presumably Budweiser, which is one of America's top brands of beer. Anheuser-Busch marketers have sought to link in customer's minds ideas the positive associations about performers, fun, and Budweiser beer. In this situation, one of the performers at the Budweiser Gardens is a prominent celebrity accused by 32 women (latest count) of drugging and raping them. Like it or not, there IS an association now between a prominent beer brand and an alleged rapist. Not only that, the allegations are that Cosby used alcohol to disguise the drugging. Of course it is possible for Anheuser-Busch to withdraw their name from the site, or forbid the management of the place not to host rapists. It is not some sideline issue when a prominent American filmmaker, Judd Apatow, criticizes Budweiser Gardens for hosting Cosby.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
My opinion remains unchanged. When we have some evidence from a reliable source that Anheuser-Busch is informed in advance who plays at their venues, and that it is possible for Anheuser-Busch to withdraw their name from the site, and that it is possible for Anheuser-Busch to forbid the managers and owners of the site from hiring certain acts, then this material might be allowable. But at this stage we have no evidence that this is the case. Based on the reliable sources provided so far and those I have been able to find on my own, Anheuser-Busch does not have the ability to do any of those things. It would be rather extraordinary of they did have those powers. Finding a sponsor for a venue is a really big deal with long-term ramifications in terms of branding, and there are all sorts of legal contracts that prevent sponsors from pulling out. And without some evidence, it seems incredible that someone sponsoring a building would have any ability to forbid the owners from using that building for its intended purpose. The WP:BURDEN of proof is on those making claims that Anheuser-Busch have these abilities. Until that is satisfied, the material doesn't belong.Mark Marathon (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
PS, since inclusion of the material hinges on the assertion that "there IS an association now between a prominent beer brand and an alleged rapist", then we will need to establish that as notable and verifiable in its own right" through the usual means: multiple reliable sources making such a claim. While I don't doubt that you personally make such an association, that alone doesn't make it notable or verifiable. If you can provide the results of a survey making such an association, or you can show multiple non-opinion newspaper articles that make such a claim, then w have something.Mark Marathon (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. Right now we have Judd Apatow criticizing the Budweiser Gardens venue, not the beer directly, but indirectly. When more sources are found, the information will be added.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Please understand, of course, that Bill Cosby and Budweiser have a ten-year association, such that jokes + beer => $$$.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems like this conversation has gone a bit stale. I'm planning on removing the tag soon since only one person has voiced their concern with the section. --Onorem (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Budweiser. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia taking a side in a trademark dispute.[edit]

Why is Wikipedia taking a side in a trade dispute? Why is Wikipedia promoting a trademark and what is more a disputed trademark? Has Anheuser-Busch made a big contribution to Wikipedia? Has Anheuser-Busch been threatening Wikipedia? Has Wikipedia moved into advertising? What is happening here.

Budweiser as a definition should go directly describing a person or something coming from Budweis. In a second step it should mention the products or trademarks using Budweiser and than it should not prioritize one product over the other.Jochum (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Is there any other example of such a blatant product promotion in Wikipedia?Jochum (talk) 10:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Have you read the above move discussion? Are you accusing all its participants of corruption? – Smyth\talk 20:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I accuse the decision makers of corruption. You can discus all you want about it as long as you want. But to decide to give a disputed name, reason of many lawsuits in many countries, direct access to one companies trade mark just stinks of corruption. If you show me a similar other occurrence in Wikipedia I would be astonished. This is not about how many people want to read about a trademark of Anheuser and Bush but of the neutrality of the Wikipedia and that went strait out of the window.Jochum (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Is this article about the Budweiser brand or Anheuser and Busch?[edit]

This is a very strange article, especially as there is a separate article regarding the Anheuser-Busch company, this article should concentrate on the Budweiser brand and leave the history of Anheuser-Busch to the that named article.Jochum (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jochum This article is about the American lager beer produced by Anheuser-Busch, named Budweiser. Somehow this article was moved from its original title Budweiser (Anheuser-Busch) to Budweiser. Despite the fact that majority was against this specific move, it was judged as a consensus for a move, arguing that "a majority of all participants favored a change over the status quo", even though the majority did't favor that the title "Budweiser" is given to this brand. There was neither an explanation on how a majority prefers taking side in Budweiser trademark dispute over "status quo", nor how is a "status quo" an undesirable status. In contrary, a majority of participants favored to stay brand-neutral, which is the opposite of what was done.--Der Golem (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
one strange thing in this article is talking about Budweiser Brands, Budweiser is a brand not a owner of brands, the owner of the different brands is Anheuser-Busch.Jochum (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jochum I understand the section titled Budweiser#Budweiser brands to be describing the brands (like Bud Light) that are associated with or derived from the main brand, called Budweiser. I don't think that ownership comes into it. I think that you have found an opportunity for improving this part of the article, as it could be confusing.
Concerning your initial statement: I have noticed that it is common for people from the United States to refer to the company as Budweiser even though it is really called Anheuser-Busch. Does this help to explain why you find the article confusing? I have not ever seen any marketing communications from Anheuser-Busch discouraging or clarifying this distinction. I am not an expert in marketing, but I would guess that it's better for sales if consumers assume that each family of brands is independent. My Gussie (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
@Der Golem: Any reason not to move it back? Would make sense to me... —Luis (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Per wp:fork, I deleted the section called 'history' because it was a history of Anheuser Busch, not of (US) Budweiser. If somebody is keen, it is worth transcribing into the AB-Inbev article, respecting the authorship of previous editors (I've forgotten the mechanism).--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The last move discussion at Talk:Budweiser#Requested move in fall 2014 was hotly contested, and the result was taken to Move Review. The current name is the result of that discussion. Unclear whether it is worth the turmoil of a new move discussion, when we can anticipate more disagreement and something close to a tie vote again. EdJohnston (talk) 01:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Agreed If the OP has a different idea of what this page should be, do a mock-up in a sandbox and put it where we can see it. Otherwise, let it rest. Prof. Mc (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I closed the last RM two years ago, based on my reading of the consensus. The decision was challenged at move review, and the decision was endorsed. If there's another move it needs to be through another consensus, and it doesn't strike me as likely. I imagine the time and effort will be better spent improving the articles than moving them around again.--Cúchullain t/c 14:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

This is such a blatant breach of the neutrality of the Wikipedia. You Cúchullain do not seem to understand the word consensus. Consensus is not a majority decision and also not what most people want. Consensus is a decision that everybody involved can live with. A decision making Wikipedia a part of the Anheuser and Busch advertisement campaign is something I can not live with.Jochum (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
The move discussion occurred two years ago and was endorsed at move review. If you still disagree, you can start a new RM if you wish, but it doesn't seem likely that you'll find a different consensus. And again, my opinion is that the time and effort would be better spent cleaning up the articles.--Cúchullain t/c 19:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I disagree on the base of neutrality. Wikipedia should not endorse a brand owned by one company above the same brand owned by another company. It is plain advertising this move and I am astonished that you do not see it.Jochum (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have some articles that cover only one specific (very popular) beer. e.g. Pilsner Urquell. But much more often, the article is about a brewing company with coverage of individual beers within that brand. See Castle Brewery and Miller Brewing Company, for example. Frankly, that does seem to be the best bet.

i.e. Make this Bud article into a section of the Anheuser-Busch InBev article that I have done a lot of updating on.

Frankly, the current content is probably too long, and will then need some condensing. For example, this is the total coverage of Michelob.

Michelob is a 5% ABV pale lager developed by Adolphus Busch in 1896 as a "draught beer for connoisseurs".[13] In 1961, Anheuser-Busch produced a pasteurized version of Michelob which allowed legal shipment of the beer across state lines. Bottled beer began to be shipped soon after, and the brand was introduced in cans in 1966. Bottled Michelob was originally sold in a uniquely shaped bottle named the teardrop bottle because it resembled a water droplet. The teardrop bottle was awarded a medal from the Institute of Design in 1962. Five years later the bottle was redesigned for efficiency in the production line. This bottle was used until 2002 when it was dropped in favor of a traditional bottle. The teardrop bottle was used again from January 2007 to October 2008.

Would Bud deserve more space than that?? Peter K Burian (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Support. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Logo should be PD?[edit]

I am posting this here because nobody will see it on the talk page of the logo. The logo is just text with a simple crown graphic and probably should be available as simple public domain text file under Template:PD-logo. A good example of "not meeting threshold of creativity" is File:Best_Western_logo.svg, which oddly enough also involves a crown.-Ich (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Will merge this page into the Anheuser-Busch page[edit]

See the discussion in Is this article about the Budweiser brand or Anheuser and Busch?. While it is not a majority opinion, we may have a consensus that this article should not stand on its own. It discusses one of the many brands of the Anheuser-Busch InBev company. Hence, it should be one of the brands discussed in that article.

Unless several users disagree, I will merge the Budweiser content into the Anheuser-Busch article. Before doing so, Budweiser will need condensed since it's much too long. No beer company article on Wikipedia devotes that much space to any single brand.

WP:CON :Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals, i.e. to achieve our five pillars. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Support. I support this proposal. The article as it stands has frequently fallen into wp:FORK as people [quite reasonably] want to include the history of the American brewers. This change will resolve that issue and I can't think of any new issues it will generate. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd object to a merge. This is one of the best known beer brands in the world and there are plenty of sources discussing it that justify a distinct article. Just remove the duplication with the company's page.--Cúchullain t/c 18:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. The American Budweiser beer, however you feel about how it tastes, deserves a standalone article, just like Miller Lite and Coors Light do. I support either sourcing or removing any unsourced statements and merging any content not specifically related to the Budweiser brand onto the AB page.-Ich (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose per Ich. Subject is far too notable to be merged into a parent article. If info overlaps, that's a content issue that should be fixed on the respective articles. Lizard (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment I just did a lot of cleanup. Much of the text was unencyclopedic or discussing non-notable ad campaigns. I also don't believe a 1-year sponsorship contract of NASCAR drivers in the 80s merits mention; I left the longer contracts and some of the events they had previously paid the naming rights for (although this list can be shortened, too). I added refs, too. I would welcome feedback, but I think this covers many of the objections the nominator had. I could still remove about a paragraph worth of text but don't want to go overboard.-Ich (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)