Talk:Heineken N.V./Archives/2014

Contradiction?
"Beer production is 109 million hectolitres per year (2003), ranking second in the world after Anheuser-Busch. After a later series of mergers among other brewers, Heineken now ranks fourth (after InBev, SABMiller, and Anheuser-Busch)." I have a feeling they're second in volume, and fourth in revenue? Either that or one of the two should go. I'll try and find out more about this (and Heineken in general), so as to update and extend the article. --Hooloovoo 12:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Handy links
Annual Report 2004/2005 Amstel subsidiary UK site Press downloads, including fact sheet International homepage


 * Bulleted list item

Heineken Light in the USA
i've just seen ads for heineken light in the US. does that mean amstel light will be discontinued? if not, what is the difference? i looked for info on the official sites but i can't find any. Streamless 16:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistent founding dates
I just submitted a fairly major revision of this page. Among other things, I noticed that the founding dates for the company were inconsistent: 1864 in some places, 1873 in others. I found a (hopefully authoritative) source at Heineken University that lists the founding date as 1863, so I updated the page accordingly.

Also, can anyone find more information on this "Dr. Elion" who invented the Heineken A-yeast? I was unable to find any good sources, just repetition of the same scanty information.

-RNLion 02:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Updated some figures
Updated some of the key figures in the beginning of the article. Needs more updating and checking though. --SausMeester 15:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Certifiable
I've heard it earned a Diplome d'Honneur. So, what is it? What yr? Trekphiler (& who cares?) 00:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Split article
This article is an incoherent collection of different topics. To keep a good overview, I think it should be split into three seperate articles: – Ilse@ 10:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Heineken International (Heineken Brewery redirects here)
 * company history
 * breweries
 * brands
 * Heineken Experience
 * the Amsterdam museum (former Heineken Brewery)
 * Heineken
 * the lager beer
 * I have created the Heineken and Heineken Experience. Now this article is only about the company. Heineken International seems the most appropriate name for this article. – Ilse@ 10:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not to split

 * 1) The article Heineken on its own cannot be more than a stub
 * 2) Articles on beer brands should follow the brand and brewery, as with Brakspear; hence Amster (beer) and other owned brands get their own articles
 * 3) Heineken as written refers only to Heineken Lager, but the brand (according to BeerAdvocate includes Heineken Dark, Heineken Oud Bruin. Heineken Tarwebock, and Heineken Light Lager. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stlemur (talk • contribs) 20:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Ad 1: I disagree, see the todo on Talk:Heineken and see also point 3.
 * Ad 2: I don't understand what User:Stlemur wants here. The 120 brands of Heineken International cannot be included into this article.
 * Ad 3: Point 3 is contradicting point 1.
 * – Ilse@ 20:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Rename articles
After editing both articles, I think the name Heineken International is not the best name for the article. I think it would be more clear to change article names: Hopefully this can also put an end to the discussion about merging the two articles. – Ilse@ 22:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * change the current Heineken International into Heineken
 * change the current Heineken into Heineken Pilsener

Ilse, I agree. Please keep a clear distinction between the beer and the company. Currently Heineken still redirects to Heineken International which is confusing. If confusion stays, I would consider changing the subjects to Heineken (the beer) and Heineken (the company) --Rhk22463 15:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC), a Heineken International employee ;)

Fair use rationale for Image:Heinekenlogo.png
Image:Heinekenlogo.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 Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
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 caution and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories, but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns, please inform the project members on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 07:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

WastedPenguinz
The Wasted Penguinz are the best Hardstyle duo in the world. They are consisting of Pontus Bergman & Jon Brandt-Cederhäll. THEY ARE THE BEST !! And they are consuming large amounts of beer. So go to http://www.youtube.com/user/PenguinzMedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.59.148.61 (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion
I have opened a move request for the beer: Heineken Pilsener to Heineken, which currently redirects here. Please see Talk:Heineken_Pilsener. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Walk-in Fridge commercial
I'm hoping to find a more reliable source for this, but apparently, "Walk-in Fridge" is a very popular commercial, just one that has not aired in the United states except as part of a TV special, Clash of the Commercials: USA vs. the World. Having watched the show, I can only say that two outstanding commercials were chosen to compete, "The Force" for the United States, and "Walk-in Fridge" for the rest of the world. In an online competition, "The Force" was selected as the winner. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 20:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Heineken International
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Heineken International's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "AR2012": From Aegon:  From DSM (company):  From ING Group:  From Randstad Holding: Financial statements of Randstad holding From Carlsberg Group:  From TNT Express:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Race controversy 2
Can someone make a case for this very large paragraph? Because right now it doesn't make much sense. -The controversy is very outdated. This happened almost 20 years ago. These kind of articles are not meant to give a diary like history of a company, just the highlights. There's one source, (and I can't find anything else) so I doubt it is a highlight. -Right now it makes the article unbalanced because contemporary Heineken is one of the most corporate responsible companies. (Black history month & Standing up for gay rights. The controversy could be mentioned, but only in relation with heineken's current endeavours( - These kind of controversies really need multiple sources, regardless of relevance. Race relations and sensitivities differ very much between countries and groups. A single source can never combine those different cultural settings and viewpoints. NeB27 (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Since no one objected, I am removing the paragraph. NeB27 (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Race controversy ??
What is this paragraph doing here? Apart from being written in Dunglish it has no direct connection with Beer, Brewers or the name Heineken. If not totally removed, it could be used with 'Corporate Bloopers' 'Dutch commercial TV' or 'Politically Incorrect Behaviour'
 * It's gone by now wasbeer84
 * I've put it back. It's direct connection is with Heineken - the subject of the article, and via that to beer and the brewery. It is not written in Dunglish. Or, at least, wasn't when I added it originally. Since the section directly relates to Heineken in an unquestionably direct manner, what are the reasons for its removal, twice? --bodnotbod 01:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the section about racism from 'steenkolenengels' into English. I do not want to judge about 'yes it belongs here or no it doesn't', but at least now it is written English --Prudentia 03:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

How about this bit of the 'race controversy'?: "to what extent should advertisers - who fund the productions - be allowed dictate content? When the fax was made public Heineken were forced to make a humiliating apology[1]." -not to split hairs or anything, but advertisers are just buying time in programmes, not directly funding as such. See Television_advertising If the Big H didn't like the programme, why did they buy time in its' broadcast? I'd like to hear a little more detail on the origin of this so-called controversy as can find nothing in English on the Web. --202.74.215.146 13:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)