Talk:Guinness/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Drink??

This may have been discussed months (years?) back but why is this called a drink? It's a beer is it not? I found that peculiar in the intro. τßōиЄ2001 (ǂ ) 02:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's actually not a beer, it is a stout but maybe you will be surprised to know that a "drink" is anything designed for drinking. You don't often hear smoothies and soup being called a "drink" but if you put it into a glass or mug and drink it, that's what you have. ~ R.T.G 22:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, sarcasm aside, according to Guinness' website, Guinness is not only an Irish stout beer, but it's "The Beer"[1]. Not sure the reason for the snarkiness, but if I don't see a reasonable argument to keep it the same, I'll change it myself. τßōиЄ2001 (ǂ ) 16:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was honestly making sure you had not mixed your smooties up with your "what a drink is". I could only say that stout is called beer less often than bitters and lagers in a lot of places whereas it is commonplace to use the word beer for lager giving the idea, for me only, that beer is a more occasional term rather than a description of Guinness (but there it is on the site...) Sure, why not? You could even try to make it "...is a popular dark frothy Irish dry-stout beer drink with alcohol..." but somebody will probably want to tidy it if it goes too far. ~ R.T.G 17:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

And isn't "Black Beer" one of it's nicknames? ~ R.T.G 17:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a stout; a stout is a beer; a beer is a drink. JIMp _talk·cont 20:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

A beer contains hops,if it does not contain hops it is an ale and unless you take intravenously or absorb it by osmosis it is a drink.94.196.61.164 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC).

Pasturised

The article under composition says Guinness is pasturised. Is this true in all regions - within Ireland / UK v outside Ireland? Pg633 (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Most modern beer is either pasteurized or filtered. Before pasteurization, beer still had live yeast in it, often so much so that it was carbonated. Modern beer makers usually pasteurize to kill the yeast or filter it out entirely, then carbonate with pressurized air, either carbon dioxide or nitrogen. A handful of wheat beers, German and Belgian beers still contain live yeast in them, as do some smaller micro breweries' products. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.166.139.242 (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of non-pasteurised beers out there -- the British "Real Ale" tradition, for instance, forbids pasteurisation. Guinness has been pasteurising beer since the 1930s, with the last non-pasteurised version -- the bottle-conditioned Extra Stout -- being quietly changed for a pasteurised edition in 2000. For non-pasteurised Irish stout, there's The Porterhouse range, among other Irish craft beers. Vernacula (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Guinness → Guinness Draught — To clarify that this is the brand of beer, and not any other topic with the name Guinness. Editors are including material in the article on the brewery - which is at St. James's Gate Brewery, the company which owns the brands, which is at Diageo, and members of the Guinness family, such as Arthur Guinness. The name of the brand is Guinness Draught, as shown by these links: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] [7] [8] [9] SilkTork *^YES! 10:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose until everything settles down, I've read the comments SilkTork directs us to, a lot of it is uncivil, coupled with the unexplained removal of two sections, I am inclined to say this is nothing but a wheel war. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 10:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Some material on the brewery has been moved to the brewery article, as noted in the edit summaries [10], [11]. There had been a discussion some years ago on splitting the brand from the brewery - what has happened over the years inbetween is that people are adding material in this article which more properly belongs in the brewery article, and that is because it is not clear enough that this is about the brand, not the brewery or the company. The requested move is an attempt to clear up that confusion. The "wheel war" (I think you mean "edit war" as User:RTG is not an admin), is RTG doing a total revert of a series of edits I had done, some of which had nothing to do with the potential name change, but were to do with WP:MoS guidance on overlinking, and some of which were adding refs to the article. Assuming good faith, I think RTG reacted emotionally, and didn't read my edits carefully, and wasn't aware I was one of the major contributors to this article. When restoring my edits, I linked to the message I sent to RTG in which I explained my edits, and that I would be opening a discussion on the name change. I feel the issues regarding the name change can be discussed without the need to get involved in a side-discussion regarding a mistaken and emotional revert. SilkTork *^YES! 11:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You can call it a "war for the Planet of the Apes" for all I care, but pointing out I think you mean "edit war" and mistaken and emotional revert are exactly the incivility I'm talking about, from you. You may have more support, maybe, if you stop talking down to the rest of us. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you think I was uncivil to you. My intention was simply to clear up a couple of points. I agree with your original comment that this isn't the right time to be discussing this move, as I'd rather people assessed the issue on its merits rather than oppose due to perceived slights, so I will close this request now as "oppose move", and consider re-opening it at a later date in line with Ohms law's comments if the article again starts to accumulate material more suited to the Guinness brewery article. I feel that Anthony's adjustment to the hatnote will be helpful. SilkTork *^YES! 16:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Surely Guinness Draught is just one of the products known as Guinness, which would also include Guinness Original (the bottled stuff) and Guinness Red (if you can manage to find it). Skinsmoke (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and that's part of the problem - the title of the article is not making it clear exactly what the article is about. The various products by the Guinness company are at Guinness_brewery#Varieties. I suppose what needs to be set out here are proposals and counter-proposals on how to deal with the situation. Possibles:

• An article on the Guinness company (Guinness & Co rather than Diageo), in which we have articles on the brands, breaking out into a standalone article for those brands, such as Guinness Draught, which are notable enough and contain enough material for their own articles? If we do that it might be best to call it Guinness & Co and merge it with the St. James's Gate Brewery article.
• An article on the main brand - Guinness Draught - with the other beers that the company makes dealt with in a separate company article? And make that clear by renaming this article from Guinness to Guinness Draught.
• Deal with both brand and company in the same article? In which case we merge St. James's Gate Brewery with Guinness

While we are discussing this, we might also consider renaming St. James's Gate Brewery to Guinness Brewery, as that may be part of the confusion. I'm down as the person we made that move back in 2006, though my recollection is that it was as a result of a discussion on renaming it. I'll see if I can find that discussion. SilkTork *^YES! 16:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per common name. While there are varieties of Guinness and people named Guinness, its advertising (at least in North America) and in most foodservice operations (bars, restaurants pubs etc) it is simply referred to as Guinness. The people named Guinness are most often referred to buy their whole name, e.g. Alec Guinness. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That is a good point, and searches for "Guinness" would still redirect to this article as the most likely target - however, once here, I think it would be helpful to let the reader know what the article is about - the product, rather than the company, or the brewery or anybody related to the family who originally made the beer (I'm talking about the Guinness family and Arthur Guinness - people who would likely be discussed in an article on Guinness the product and company, rather than anyone else who happens to share the Guinness surname). What I'm looking for here is getting some clarity for the article and how to deal with the brand(s), the company, the brewery and related people. I realise I haven't set this up clearly enough as it appears that people are not quite getting the issue. I'm looking for the same clarity as Heineken International and Heineken Pilsener - with Heineken redirecting to the brand. Budweiser is also a well known brand, but Budweiser also means something else. The aim throughout is to avoid confusion, and to direct people to the right place, and once they have arrived at the right place, to give them the appropriate information. It's not always possible to do this in a single edit, or a single day - and most of our articles are works in progress, but let's help them go in the right direction. How can calling this article after the name of the brand (a name very widely used by the company, media writers, beer writers, and beer websites as shown by my links above) be not helpful? SilkTork *^YES! 21:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose IAW WP:UCN and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, especially since anthony fixed up the hatnotes here. I understand the desire to clarify that SilkTork is expressing here, but that isn't really going to be helped by a page move. Go ahead and edit the article content, and even break out sub-articles if the content supports it. After some editing I could see readdressing this question, but currently I'm going to stick with oppose.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω)
• Oppose per above. --John (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Guinness is the drink. Coca-Cola: "This article is about the beverage. For its manufacturer, see The Coca-Cola Company". --Bogger (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Silktork, in Ireland, Guinness is a brand with similar familiarity to Coca-Cola, Budweiser, Pepsi, Heiniken. All these drinks come in draught. Guinness has been experimenting with varieties a lot in the last few years. The oldest Guinness variety is a bottled drink, not a draught. It is still sold bottled and such a popular icon in Ireland... Draught just means stored in a keg and released from a beer tap with the help of some pressurised gas. ~ R.T.G 18:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• I have clarified page Guinness's hatlink. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense, and is helpful. Good idea. SilkTork *^YES! 07:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Basics

a) We will take the word of http://guinness.com for what the suitable name of the brand is. b) If that company does not refer to itself as the "Guinness Draught" or "Guinness Draft" brand, we shall not either. That is the end of the story no matter where you read different. If the company refers to itself as "Guinness" (for instance) we shall be refering to it as just that to be correct and no more. Nothing else. Maximum, ad finitum.

I appologise if my arrogance prevents anybody doing just what makes them feel good and right. I am often wrong myself. That is just tuff. ~ R.T.G 20:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"Do not modify" tags

Do not modify tags are designed to enclose pages on AfD and Requested Moves pages to archive a whole page. I request here for all to see that the above discussion not be prevented from further debate as such pevention is un-Wiki-like and furthermore unnessecary. Even if this was a Requsted Move page, which it is not, it would be bad form and unnacceptable for the person opening the debate to close it. SilkTork has continiued the debate here and the suggestion that the matter is closed to discussion is misleading at least and unfair at best. ~ R.T.G 17:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Also known as

"Also known as" sections are best used where some confusion maybe be encountered. "Chips, also known as french fries" is a good one. "Engine, also known as steam engine, combustion engine and electric engine" is overuse. ~ R.T.G 17:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The reference to the Flann O'Brien line 'A pint of plain is your only man' is irrelevant and misleading. Plain is a different type of drink, once widely available in Ireland and popular because cheaper than real stout. It looks a lot like stout. See the Porterhouse drink 'Plain'. I'm going to remove this bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.89.27 (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That's OR until you can prove otherwise.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous policy. So I can add any rubbish I want to a page and nobody can delete it until they can disprove it? Nonsense! Whoever added this didn't know what they were talking about (and was most likely part of a majority who fail to get that the poem in question is satirical). I, however, am at a loss to disprove the information without wasting a lot more of my precious time, so the misinformation will remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.214.20 (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

"Plain" was the weaker, cheaper porter that they made until 1974.86.42.203.37 (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Article in The Independent

There's an article in The Independent that might be useful for filling out the early history: Happy birthday Guinness! The Black Stuff at 250.

Cormac Ó Gráda on Guinness's *real* history

The Irish Times published this highly informative article by the historian Cormac Ó Gráda this week. Ó Gráda went through the folklore archives of the Irish Folklore Commission in UCD and discovered that Guinness is only a relatively very new drink in most parts of Ireland and not something which has been common for even half of the 250 years that Guinness marketeers would like us to think. Whiskey and poitín were the traditional drinks, and even ale was much more common. An eye-opening article for anybody who wants to get beyond the "Irish" claims of this British company. 78.16.212.240 (talk) 07:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm...With your eye for truth and detail will you perhaps help me work just as hard to uncover and develop in story similar clarity say perhaps in something random such as the Irish roots of the "British" Beatles?? Much obliged!75.249.99.184 (talk) 04:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Irish roots of at least two of the Beatles are very clear, considering Lennon wrote Sunday, Bloody Sunday and The Luck of the Irish following Bloody Sunday (1972), while McCartney wrote Give Ireland Back to the Irish in reaction to the same massacre. But if you want to claim British drug dealers like Guinness as "Irish", feel free (just don't omit to mention that the first Irish Catholic to be employed as a manager in this notoriously (if often forgotten) sectarian organisation was only employed after WW2). 109.76.210.47 (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Writing songs doesn't officially give you blood or a passport. What seems to be said about Arthur Guinness being a part of the Protestant Ascendency and former sectarian principles of the company would be good adds but the sectarianism is not mentioned in this Cormac OGrady article and he does say in the same area that Cuchulainn is typical ancient Irish example while real Ireland is west and southwest. His "gap" does not account for the one between the home and folk of Cuchulainn, for instance, and the area perceived as most alienated. An example of those who do not join the religion and pledge allegiance to the popular side being ignored or irrelevant. A familiar irony that would have me overlook the source. Maybe if he writes a few articles about the main road into Donegal somebody might build one...! ~ R.T.G 23:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

O Grada was right, but didn't say that until the 1920s Guinness sold its product within 10 miles of Dublin, and it was sold on by agents. If it didn't sell in the west of Ireland that was down to the agents, surely. By definition, the Irish Folklore Commission found its material in poorer rural areas, and who wants to sell a product in a poor area; QED.86.42.203.37 (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

What a classic line, "...the sectarianism is not mentioned in this Cormac OGrady article...". So what if the G business didn't set quotas for lesbians or Jains? Did any brewery? O Grada's university is University College Dublin, and when have they ever set quotas? Of course he didn't mention sectarianism, who does nowadays?86.42.204.82 (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Pouring & Serving

added a 'Citation Needed' tag to the explanation of the two-step pour. Think that's fairly reasonable. Anyone know where this explanation came from? Dave (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Back again!… the citation added for this section pointed to a website that a) didn't contain any reference to the two-part pour at all, and b) didn't look particularly like a reputable site to begin with. I've removed the reference & replaced the CN tag. TBH, I've never heard this explanation for the history of the pour at all. I've looked only & can't find anything about it. I'd think about deleting it if there's no objections? At the moment it seems just like speculation Dave (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The photograph in this section, while well taken, is of a horribly poured pint. Given that this section is on presentation of the drink maybe a picture representing a proper pint would be better suited. As well presented as this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Guinness.jpg) but perhaps as well photographed as the existing image. Conorflan (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

how long is Guinness good for in a bottle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.78.248 (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

---

QUESTION - Isn't the 2-part pour a marketing myth kept alive by Diageo. I've been told by experienced bartenders that modern methods of pouring do not require a 2-part pour. Are there any articles to verify this and then update the Wikipedia section?— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎83.147.185.109 (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2012

This source indicates that there is more involved than simply marketing. RashersTierney (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

coffee and Guiness

Ithought I read somewhere that Guinness was first made with burnt coffee. Is there any truth in that ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.113.104 (talk) 13:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No, Arthur Guinness based all his testing and creating with other alcoholic drinks he had tasted previous, none involving a caffeine based drink — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.43.44 (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Welsh local historian claims AG 'stole' recipe

So what? The issue is not so much whether 'a local historian' made such a claim so much as whether it is historically true. The source makes no judgment, and the article is not apparently intended to be taken too seriously. Looks like a fringe theory (if not in fact a silly season spoof) and should be treated accordingly. I don't see why the recent removal shouldn't stand. RashersTierney (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Int facts

Daily Mail wrote yeasterday that in one pint of Guinness exists one-day norm of B12. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.159.27.170 (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Why the Tucan Bird ?

was curious as to why an Icon of Ireland has all the old Pub Signs of the Tucan birds ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.34.76.28 (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

What year did it become a British company?

This article does not answer the following. In what year did Guinness move its headquarters from Ireland and become a British company? Why? In what year did it move its primary stock market listing from the ISEQ (Ireland) to the FTSE (Britain)? Does it still have an ISEQ presence? 89.101.41.216 (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Should it be noted that Guinness made use of a Magdalene laundry?

Guinness, amongst others, made use of a Magdalene laundry in its past. I tried to search for this fact on this wiki but couldn't find it. To me it seems that this should be listed, right? AgamemnonZ (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)