Talk:Budweiser

message: "...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)
thread_title: Off flavors comment

message: "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)
thread_title:  Meaning? 

message: 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)
thread_title: File:Budweiser beverage delivery truck Romulus Michigan.JPG Nominated for Deletion

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: 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)
thread_title: File:A bottle of Budweiser.JPG Nominated for Deletion

message: 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)
thread_title:  hey,30% or 80% rice ? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: As long as you provide proper sourcing sounds like a plan to me. CTJF83 11:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding information about cans under the "Containers and packaging" section 

message: 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".Brazil Moves To Ease Soccer Beer Ban, As World Cup Spat With FIFA Grows, NPR (March 07, 2012).Brazilian Senate approves ‘Budweiser bill’ ending dispute with FIFA over World Cup sponsoring, Merco Press, (May 10, 2012).
How can this be added to the article? Should it be added to Anheuser-Busch? Wholesomegood (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Brazilian's Budweiser bill=

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: MR created, please get involved. Jirka.h23 (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Result of the request 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Advertising bias and removal of sourced content 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Budweiser. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150202210400/http://adage.com/article/special-report-super-bowl/bud-proudly-macro-swagger-filled-super-bowl-ad/296932/ to http://adage.com/article/special-report-super-bowl/bud-proudly-macro-swagger-filled-super-bowl-ad/296932/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120421081217/http://www.thesunnews.com/2011/08/03/2313953/business-briefs.html to http://www.thesunnews.com/2011/08/03/2313953/business-briefs.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: Is there any other example of such a blatant product promotion in Wikipedia?Jochum (talk) 10:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

text: Have you read the above move discussion? Are you accusing all its participants of corruption? – Smyth\talk 20:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia taking a side in a trademark dispute. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Logo should be PD? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Will merge this page into the [[Anheuser-Busch]] page  

message: 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.
The argument that "Budweiser" stands for (Anheuser–Busch) in the English speaking world is true! Counter: Firstly - this is an encyclopaedia not a tabloid. Secondly - the internationality that English has acquired demands a title not based on colloquialism or one specific countries' traditions but neutral and descriptive facts. The current title does not fulfil these criteria and is to some extend misleading. Requests for comment! Bengt Hennig (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed before. See Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 September which endorsed the consensus solution of the current status quo. Although I don't agree, I will still live with it.-Ich (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Support a proper RfC with templates, sufficient publicization to get enough input and all per WP:RFC. The issue is still clearly highly contested after a move request which did not even have the scope to deal with it. The final closer of the 2014 move review referenced above commented that RfC is exactly the right place to discuss the article title: "(...) however, using requested moves to settle content issues is outside its scope (and would be outside the scope of the closer to factor in). For complex content decisions, consider opening a request for comment, which can have multiple options, including a proposal to move various articles around." Manelolo (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Requests for comment 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Budweiser. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071128193838/http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center/releases2/greenpeace-exposes-anheuser-bu to http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center/releases2/greenpeace-exposes-anheuser-bu
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The section labelled 'Beer' states, "Budweiser is produced using barley malt, rice, water, hops and yeast" Labelling requirements in the EU are very strict and require that the ingredients are accurate and listed in order of quantity. The Budweiser label states that the ingredients are water, rice, corn syrup, barley, malt extract, hop extract and yeast. There are two serious differences. First there is the addition of corn syrup and second, according to the label, Budweiser contains neither malt nor hops.OrewaTel (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Then go ahead and correct it, citing the label as source, with reference to the labelling regulations that require the label to be accurate. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beer 

message: There is a total of 28 sources in that section now, which I think is enough sources.  Grapefanatic (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  requesting removal of not enough sources in section