Talk:Havana Club

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


this article does not adress who the origional owners of the brand are, and does not discuss it's illegal seisure by the castro regime.


hasn't bacardi re-acquired the name? also, isn't it true that bacardi does not have the original mothers that havana club does?


Its starting to seem as though people affiliated with the new U.S. based division of Havana Club are making edits to the article. The references given for the critical reception of the new rum are a bit overpraising, one is from the actual company's site, but the other is just a press release from an automatic news feed issued by the company itself (with duplicate info from the site, its not really a separate citeable source as sites using feeds simply run what's submitted to PRnewswire). Are there any other sources which indicate that the Cuban version isn't the "original" recipe other than what the new company says? Trying to be impartial, its just curious that someone who had a company appropriated says that the rum isn't the same. What makes it more curious is that they also literally refer to the Cuban version as "undrinkable" when Cuba-produced Havana club is famous throughout the world. It just seems odd that the factory with all the supplies and many of the same workers continued to be used yet the recipe was not retained (but apparently not the quality if Havana Club stays in high demand). I'm leaving Archebala's comments, but it would be nice to see additional citations other than those from someone who is now promoting the same line of rum produced in Puerto Rico. Obviously Archebala is using his original recipe, but how exactly do we know that the Cuban government isn't using the same one (especially if Archebala can't visit the plant in Cuba?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Proposal to Disambig[edit]

Given Bacardi's version of Havana Club has been out to the market, I foresee the risk of running into edit warfare about which of the two is authetic, given this article in fact gives preference to the Cuban brand (because it is sold to all but one country in the world). For this reason, I propose this article to be split.

However, there are two ways to do it and I list out the three options. When a "Support" is given for a vote, also indicate which of the following options would you choose.

  1. This page for the Cuban version, split Bacardi version to Havana Club (Puerto Rico). Add toplinks as appropriate.
  2. This page for pre-1959 history only, as for post-1959 developments, it is split to Havana Club (Cuba) and Havana Club (Puerto Rico).
  3. This page is changed into a pure disambig page, and its contents entirely split to Havana Club (Cuba) and Havana Club (Puerto Rico).

--Samuel CurtisShinichian-Hirokian-- TALK·CONTRIBS 12:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - how about just moving the bacardi product to Bacardi Havana Club? --Qyd 20:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Other Bacardi products use this name algorihm, see Bacardi#Products. --Qyd 20:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It is not because it's a special naming convention on the article, but just the products listed all bears the Bacardi brand. Bacardi-owned Havana Club, however, does not bear the marque of Bacardi. Check the websites for details. --Samuel CurtisShinichian-Hirokian-- TALK·CONTRIBS 05:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, OK, I get it now, we are charged with the difficul task of disambiguating something Bacardi actually wants to be confusing....--Qyd 11:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Support Votes[edit]

Oppose Votes[edit]


Typo Bacardi is spelt with the "r" before the d. One has to be especially careful since there is a danger of supporting the financial interests of either the Castro government or the Bacardi company. Of course I take the view that since Castro stole both companies property in Cuba, he, Raul or the Cuban government have no rights in the matter. El Jigue 1-13-07

Except as the previous owners allowed their rights to lapse, and the Castro government / Pernod Ricard have registered the name properly under international law, who else should have the rights ? -- Beardo 17:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
As above, and I'm talking about a product that physically exist in this world. (You don't oppose there is Havana Club rum made in Cuba and sold outside the US.) I personally can care less about Cuban politics, and I am puzzled as on Cuban politics would affect this article in any way.--Samuel CurtisShinichian-Hirokian-- TALK·CONTRIBS 17:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
How did Cuba "steal" the companies? They nationalized them which is something that any country is entitled to do. Seems fair to me - take the product away from big business and put it in the hands of the people.-- (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The EU-US DIspute on the Havana Club Mark[edit]

Although the Pernod/Bacardi Dispute of the Havana Club trademark has not been well-discussed, one can easily make a good article on this by using this WTO document. I just wonder if this should be on this article or another article. --Samuel CurtisShinichian-Hirokian-- TALK·CONTRIBS 10:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Split of Bacardi version finished[edit]

I have, in accordance of the discussion above, split the Bacardi version to Havana Club (Bacardi). From now I would keep out of these two articles, except day-to-day pure vandalism patrolling and materials on of the lawsuit between Bacardi and Pernod Ricard about the ownership about the trademark in the US-- in which, I think, for neutrality issues, should be introduced in another article. --Samuel CurtisShinichian-Hirokian-- TALK·CONTRIBS 12:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

@Samuel Curtis: By the way, I proposed re-merging the articles. Seven years later, they're 90% redundant to each other and confusing to readers. See discussion below on this talk page. Thanks! —Luis (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Havanaclublogo.png[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Havanaclublogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Develop Havana-Club page[edit]

Hi, I am working for Havana-Club and I would like to know if it is possible to develop this section. Havana has built a website discussing on cocktails, rum making process... Is that possible to create some article in this page telling for exemple that Havana recommand / suggest to make Mojito or Daiquiri cocktail in a special way (explain what ingredients to use...), that havana make its rum with in particulalry way...?

Thank you for your answer. - Amagon Rosh14:27 27 February 2008

What you said is not recommended:
  1. Wikipedia is not a instruction book.
  2. Wikipedia has a conflict of interest policy, and clearly, it is not in the interest of Wikipedia for a person who works for Havana Club to edit Havana Club.
However, you are welcome to edit other pages.

--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 01:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The Daiquiri and Mojito articles could both use a little help from someone who knows rum, and I don't think that would be a conflict. Someone has been adding external links to irrelevant, commercial sites on the Mojito article, one of which suggests a mojito doesn't need rum! Rees11 (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging[edit]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 03:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


The trademark situation should get some more coverage here.

Rees11 (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

March 12 revert[edit]

I've been asked to explain why I reverted an extensive edit on 12 March.

The edit was fairly large and had no explanation attached in the log. There were several problems with it. One was the removal of the Joaquín Roy reference. The material it supported was not removed, but it's still not a good idea to remove a source with no explanation.

Another problem was the addition of all the material in the International sales section. The only source given for any of this was the U.S. judge kills Cuban lawsuit on rum trademark AP story. The story does not support most of the material. The added wp:weasel words, "is speculated to be," was another reason. I briefly tried to rescue the additions but per wp:burden it was just too much work, so I reverted the entire edit.

My suggestion for moving forward is to add the material in smaller pieces, with an edit summary for each edit, and proper sources. And don't remove anything that's already there, including sources. Rees11 (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The age of the Rum is wrong.[edit]

The Cuban Brand Havana Club was established in 1934. Not 1878 ! It was owned and created by the family/company ARECHABALA. The company was created at the date of 1878 But they produced different rums and spirits. The follwoing scan of their 75 years books show - that the brand was established in 1934 after a marketing research show them that americans now want to drink cuban rum . so to say - Havana Club Rum was created to fit the American Taste.


Joerg Meyer — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I've confirmed this with other sources and will fix it momentarily. —Luis (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Propose merging Havana Club (Bacardi) back into this one[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this "discussion" with myself was that I will be bold and merge. —Luis (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I propose that Havana Club (Bacardi) should be merged back into this one. They are two different products, but from a reader's perspective they are the same brand, so the split is confusing to readers. And 80% of the Havana Club (Bacardi) article is the history and the trademark dispute, which is essentially identical between the two brands and is wasteful/error-prone to keep two copies of. It will take some careful writing to keep the distinction clear in this article, but I think it is a better outcome for the readers and eventually for the editors as well. Thoughts? —Luis (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I would say they are separate brands with the same name, but maybe that's too fine a distinction. Are there any precedents or policies that apply here? I'm inclined to merge just because I don't think the Bacardi version is notable on its own, but at this point I don't have a strong opinion. The one similar brand I can think of, Aldi, has a combined article. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Both the US and WTO agree it is one brand, they just disagree on who should own it ;) But maybe that's one of the things to clarify in the article. —Luis (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Note that Kendall-K1 is the only person with substantive contributions to either article, other than me, for something like the last six years, so they are the only person I contacted about the merge. Thoughts from others obviously welcome. —Luis (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC) I'm going to go ahead and be bold; final straw was that the section on reviews in the other article is mistakenly about Pernod Ricard products. In other words, we're even confusing ourselves. So closing the discussion and going ahead with the merge. —Luis (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Apparently it actually was a club[edit]

Apparently there was an actual private bar called the "Havana Club", and the rum was produced for the bar: [1]

Also there is a museum: [2]

Unfortunately these are both blog sources, but maybe they could be a starting point to fill in the early history. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm OK with using plausible blog sources where the source culture is underrepresented on the internet (as, necessarily, old Cuba is). No idea if we have a policy on that sort of thing, though :) (and not speaking to these particular blogs yet, which I haven't read yet - maybe over lunch). —Luis (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Havana Club. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)