Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-09-06/Guinness

Where is the dispute?
Guinness

Who is involved?

 * User:SilkTork
 * User:RTG

What is the dispute?
The Guinness brand name, product, company, family and brewery share the name "Guinness". There has been previous discussion on how to deal with a company that has a product with the same name - that discussion led to a discussion on brewery and beer brand notability, which resulted in the WP:Breweries guideline. The guideline allows for a notable brand to have a standalone article, and for the company to also have a standalone article. In this case we have Guinness (the brand) and St. James's Gate Brewery and Diageo, which are about the company which makes the product.

Over time the brand article (Guinness) accumulated detailed information specifically about the company and/or the brewery. I noted this and have been tidying up the articles so that it is clear which article is about the brand, and which is about the brewery, and moving content as appropriate, leaving edit comments to explain what I was doing. I felt that it would further help matters to rename the Guinness article to Guinness Draught as that is the brand name for the main product. This move was not seen as appropriate, and was undone. I asked for a discussion on the move, and it was clear that consensus was to keep the article at Guinness as that is the WP:Common name, and differentiation would be observed by an informative Lead, article content and a hatnote. This makes sense. While this has happened User:RTG has twice done a total revert of the work done to clarify the article's content - and.

The relationship between myself and User:RTG is not cordial. RTG left a note on my talkpage, and I didn't react well -. I could have handled the situation better, and I am sorry that I over-reacted and was rude to User:RTG. I restored the work I had done and carried on working on the article. Now User:RTG has reverted it again, and we are unable to communicate effectively together, so I am somewhat stuck. User:RTG is not satisfied with the explanations and links I have provided, yet I am unable to work on the article while it is likely that User:RTG will revert me again.  SilkTork  *YES! 12:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

RTGs comments about Guinness Draught
Hi, I am from Ireland. Guinness celebrates its 250th birthday this year. Every day on the TV there has been an advert from historical archives as part of the 250th ads. They market themselves, and apparently have always marketed themselves as Guinness. Use of the term Guinness Draught equates a parallel in meaning to saying the term Bottled Guinness ("draught" is a direct reference to the mathod of storage and delivery of a drinkable product, i.e. stored in a keg and released from a bar tap = draught). The Guinness website www.guinness.com is probably the easist and most defining example of the companies main trading name.


 * Mr SilkTork made a lot of edits to the Guinness article with edit summaries like "Changing to the real brand name Guinness Draught" and eventually moved the whole article to the page Guinness Draft. Well I just happen to watch the Guinness article and reverted all his edits. I tried to explain on his page the merits of the word Draught and that signifigant changes to articles should be discussed on the talkpage (apparently not cordial i dont know). So, SilkTork has various links to webpages that say Guinness Draught in places like National Vinters website or very similar to that. The large conglomerate that bought Guinness a few years ago is called Diageo. He points to a page on their website outlining the Guinness brand and product claiming it to be a reference that the 250 year old brand, older than draught beer, is actually the Draught brand, but this page is all about Guinness and at very bottom says something about Guinness Draught. Mr SilkTork has obviously not very much experience of Irish bars, the home of the Guinness product (lol), where Guinness In A Bottle is a common brand too, more so than Coca Cola because some bars serve Pepsi but all serve Guinness.


 * SilkTorks reference to previous brand name disputes seems to imply that he would like to make the page Guinness Draught. He could and should I suggest. As for moving the current Guinness article there and rewording all its parts to make it appear to be about anything other than the 250 year old Guinness brand, he should not and edits to that effect should be reverted accordingly. Genuine apologies for any comments here or elswhere that would make Mr SilkTork feel that I would be anything less than "cordial". In my view we check Guinness to see what they will call themselves. ~ R.T.G 12:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

What would you like to change about this?
I would like the reverts of Guinness to cease, and an open discussion between User:RTG and myself to reach agreement on the best way forward for the Guinness article.  SilkTork  *YES! 12:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

How do you think we can help?
I would like a moderated discussion between User:RTG and myself in which we can explore fully the user's objections to my edits.  SilkTork  *YES! 12:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Mediator notes
I'll take this case up. Mediation will take place in this page, if you guys don't mind. I've posted my first instruction under 'Discussion'. Bejinhan Talk   03:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * JFYI, I won't be around until Sunday. Please keep this discussion civil. Bejinhan  Talk   02:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

 * 1) Firstly, all edits to the Guinness article made by those involved in this case must cease while this discussion is going on. Agree? Bejinhan  Talk   03:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree.  SilkTork  *YES! 06:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, where do I write my opinions on the Guinness matter? ~ R.T.G 11:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier, discussion will be held here. Please remember to be civil when discussing. You can start voicing your opinions now. Bejinhan  Talk   12:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)



It might be helpful to go through the work that RTG is not satisfied with section by section and get an agreement on which parts are acceptable. This is the version that RTG reverted:. The changes are in red.

1. "brand of beer" changed to "type of beer". We use the term "type of beer" to refer to those aspects of beer which are not classified as beer styles - such as the larger groups "ale" and "lager", or indigenous beers such as Cauim. Guinness is not a style of beer by itself - it is an example of a style - Irish stout. As it is not a style by itself, and it is not a type of beer, it seems appropriate to call it a brand of beer. The Guinness brand is trademarked. The article is about the beer that is produced under the Guinness brand.

2. "Guinness Draught or Guinness " to Guinness. Guinness Draught is the modern name of the brand. It is known as both Guinness Draught and simply Guinness. A section in which the explanation for why it is called Guinnes Draught these days is one of those which RTG has removed. That section needs expanding, and the explanation needs to be made clearer throughout the article (with appropriate sources), but is simply that Guinness invented a "widget" which could be placed inside bottles and cans and which released nitrogen when the can or bottle is opened, giving the impression that the beer is a "draught" product.

3. "Guinness is a popular dry stout" changed to "Guinness is a popular dry stout beer". The word beer is not needed as stout is a beer.

4. "Guinness is based on" changed to "Guinness is based on". Within the article the word Guinness is being used both to refer to the Guinness company - Guinness & Co, and the product that the company makes - Guinness (also known as Guinness Draught). In this case the product is being referred to, and convention in beer articles is to put the product in italics, as with albums and books.

5. "the brewery has declined to confirm" to "Guinness has refused to confirm". This is not important - it's simply slightly better writing to vary the way of saying the same thing (repeating Guinness can get tedious), and "declined" is softer than "refused". But it's a small point.

6. "Ireland" to "Ireland". That is to comply to with MoS - WP:OVERLINK. I run a script which identifies the overlinking and removes it - as shown in the edit summary -.

7. This image - Image:Guinness Draught Logo.svg replaced with this image Image:Guinness-original-logo.png. The first image shows the use of the name Guinness Draught.

8. "Guinness continues to be Ireland’s number one beer" changed to "Guinness continues to be Ireland’s number one beer" - this is the same as number 4 above.

9. "Guinness & Co." changed to "Guinness & Co." - this removes the link to the Guinness company article - St. James's Gate Brewery.

That's the lead section, and I think we can pause there. If there are any of these that RTG no longer objects to, then can it be agreed that Bejinhan restores them?  SilkTork  *YES! 20:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * NOTICE: I reverted all of SilkTorks recent edits wholesale because at start middle and end was the theme "Chosen wording for brand and article title was incorrect". Other editing was in there but it is up to SilkTork and nobody else to seperate that stuff out. The mediator/s may be able to crosscheck this one and only point I am holding quickly and easily but if this going to turn into a long and pointed debate we really should involve an Irish editor or two slightly above my league from the Ireland WikiProject. Guinness truly is, in a broad sense, a core Irish culture topic such as would be Budweiser or Jack Daniels in some parts of the world.


 * We do not obscure Nike by Nike Air or Levis by Levis 501. The point between Guinness and Guinness Draught is parallel with these examples. If this point is not clear for mediators, please say so and I will try to provide other style of examples. All best, ~ R.T.G 23:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Important Point: Above it says the modern name of Guinness is Guinness Draught and, in line with that reasoning, Guinness (Also known as Guinness Draught). These statements are ill informed and misleading. That is the end of the debate. Check it with Guinness. Check it with Irish bars where Guinness products are served traditionally. If this debate does not clear on this one point, as mentioned before, it is time to ask folk on the WikiProject Ireland for some better knowledgable pointers. GNight now ~ R.T.G 23:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly, article on companies like Guinness have a standard format. A parent article with the other articles linked at appropriate sections. Examples are Remy Martin and Jack Daniel's. The correct way of writing should be: Guinness is a company(link to the company article) that is know for manufacturing (insert link to article that Guinness manufactures), such as (insert link to example of article). If both of you understand the point I'm trying to make, I think this debate can be resolve easily. Bejinhan  Talk   03:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That is the nail on the head Bejihan, Guinness the company makes Guinness Draught but SilkTork has been attempting to confuse these two saying rather that Guinness Draught makes Guinness Draught. Guinness is a lot older than draught and its oldest beer still lines the shelves in 90% or more of Irish bars, Irish bars being the most natural environ for Guinness products. Now, I should bow out a little because if stronger convincing is required, if is not cut and dry on that and what they themselves call themseves on Diageo and Guinness .com, more knowledgable advice should be sought from the Ireland project. ~ R.T.G 11:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we are all agreed. Where the confusion rests is that we already have the company article - St. James's Gate Brewery (in addition to a parent company article - Diageo). The product article is Guinness. What has happened is that people have not been aware that the Guinness article is about the product, and that there is a separate company article. Part of the solution may be to change the name of St. James's Gate Brewery to Guinness & Co. or Guinness Brewery.
 * As for knowledgeable advice - I have been a beer writer in real life for some years. I am a member of the British Guild of Beer Writers under my real name of Steve Pereira. My advice has been sought by the BBC on three occasions regarding brewing in Scotland. I have been a very active member of the Beer WikiProject since early 2006, and I brought the Beer article to Good Article status. However, I welcome participation in a wider discussion on the Guinness article by any Wikipedia contributor - though I feel that discussion should take place on the Guinness talkpage rather than here.
 * If we are all agreed that there should be a company article and a product article, and these articles already exist, can I now carry on editing the articles to make it clear to people which article is which?  SilkTork  *YES! 00:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like we still don't agree. St James Gate Brewery is the area for that which is St James Gate, not the place for that which is Guinness trading company. Guinness Draught is the place for that which is Guinness from a beer tap (or of course what they called draught from a can variety, the widget, blah). Guinness is the place for all that is Guinness trading company from history to product, brewery, pictures, culture any of that stuff, possibly including in part the Guinness Draught info in case that it does not go for a whole page in itself. From history to product not from product to history. None of these pages, Guinness and St James Gate Brewery, should be deleted or redirected to some related topic. None of them should be redesigned to make a topic, such as a recent single end-product appear to be the main topic because they are not the same thing. Draught Guinness in A, Guinness company in B. Very similar, very closely related even yet never the same. Guinness the company is centuries old and can at least be described before its products if it indeed differs from them. What you are suggesting is akin to reworking the Coca Cola article to be a Diet Coke article. It's interesting but isn't quite accurate even if Diet Coke today outsells the other stuff. It may be acceptable to say "Diet Coke is the most successful Coca Cola product" if that be the case. Calling out "There is no Coca Cola any more!" gets you slapped for hysterics. Of course there is still a Coca Cola wasn't I just looking at one? Are we starting to agree now? Put all you like about draught Guinness in reason but do not alter the subject of the article which is absolutely correct, the Guinness activity, brand and range of product both modern and of notable history. If we want nothing more than the latest drink on the shelf with no details we know where to get one. ~ R.T.G 11:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've asked a few people from WikiProject Ireland to comment. Hopefully that will help. Bejinhan  Talk   13:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Some points:
 * In Dublin, St. James's Gate refers to the brewery, not the company - that's referred to by the company names - either Guinness or Diagio (the latter usually in business news.)
 * This FAQ list refers to GUINNESS® Draught and Bottled GUINNESS® separately - how to pour them is two separate answers. (Note: users outside Ireland may be redirected to a different version of the site - this cached version may be useful.) The FAQ list on this enthusiast site explains the difference as the presence of yeast in bottled Guinness. Clearly the two are distinct, so using Guinness Draft as the general term is incorrect. A mention of the difference would be useful.
 * The term stout is used instead of stout beer in Ireland (and the UK I think). Occasionally the word Porter is used. Autarch (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The "enthusiast site" information is incorrect. The site contains speculation by people who don't have the facts. There are many mistakes: for example, there has been no bottle conditioned Guinness since 2000.  SilkTork  *YES! 06:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In my experience worldwide, when people say "Guinness" they are referring to a pint of the black stuff (regardless of what exactly that black stuff is, in terms of product). We also don't normally call it "St. James Gate Brewery", we refer to is as the "Guinness Brewery" although if someone says "St. James Gate" we'd know that it is a reference to "Guinness Brewery" (although strictly speaking, St. James Gate refers to an area and not just the brewery).  These days, most people go on tours to the "Guinness Storehouse" and not to the "Guinness Brewery" as they would have done years back.
 * All that being said, SilkTork is technically accurate and correct with most of his edits and I believe will result in an improvement to the article. That being said, a word of caution that we ensure that terminology is clear and accurate where needed but that we shouldn't sarcrifice readbility for accuracy if the end result is that readers get confused (although SilkTork has in the past been excellent at avoiding this).
 * Just my 2c on one element of potential confusion. I believe it mainly arises from the "overloading" of the term "Guinness".  Dealing with the Product side of things first.  This article states the Diageo Plc has one major beer brand: Guinness.  It states that its prime line is "Guinness Draught" and that it is available in pints (keg), cans, and bottles.  But that same article also lists "Guinness Foreign Extra Stout" as another product, yet for most people, both would be called Guinness.  Similarly, many people use "St. James's Gate" as a location in Dublin, and not as the name of the brewery.  Even Reuters news articles do so.  But that's not to say that this article can't successfully be accurate.  --HighKing (talk) 11:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * While bottle-conditioned Guinness (along with Breó and other products) are no longer in production, the argument could be made that the distinction should be kept, as the company is 250 years old and has a history of different products. Not making the distinction might make articles outdated quickly if Guinness starts another line or two or products. HighKing makes a very good point about the overloading of the term "Guinness". The Guinness is more of a WP:RS than the enthusiast site, certainly. Autarch (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by bottle "conditioned", obviously viewed on that website linked above, ivo, but if we are talking about guinness that comes in a bottle, it is still in the bars, it is still on their website without mention of discontinuation... "conditioned"? A lot of the stuff in that ivo link is historic and suppositional, centuries old, read carefully! I repeat the call to see the Guinness website. Some of these vinters orginisations probably know a lot about beer but we will just have to go the usual route. If we wanted to know where McDonalds gets their beef we would start on mcdonalds.com, would we? Let's say McDonalds beef was coming from Brazil and we were saying "What does it say on farmbeefasia.com?" They are probably great at farming beef but in fairness, all they have to say about McDonalds is hearsay and supposition. If they said "Brazil, Mexico, all the same." we have only one way to check one for sure. We go see mcdonalds.com because that is gospel unless acceptably challenged. End of vinters websites here, goodnight there, see you, toodle oo there vinters websites international, we have the actual Guinness site for decent reliable source material on Guinness, no offense. If you have a true source you must start there even if you are showing it to be the least preferable source.
 * If this debate is designed to moderate information passing between SilkTork and me personally, let's hear it, guinness.com, is their exact portrayal of the facts the most important reliable? Do we write the article Collins Dictionary based on information gleaned from Chambers Dictionary? No? End. Thanks to all you vinters websites out there but let's start with guinness.com and work our way out from there, cheers. ~ R.T.G 09:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what point you're trying to make. But be aware that WP relies on secondary sources, and some might claim Guinness.com to be a primary source...  Not unacceptable as a source, but we should also try to find reliable secondary references, such as books, expert opinions and writings, etc.  --HighKing (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Such as Guinness, the name of it is really Guinness Draught. I see what you are saying. ~ R.T.G 21:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we are at the stage where, with the comments made at Talk:Guinness and on this page, that there is a consensus for there to be an article about the company that makes Guinness, and a separate article about the main brand.

The company article should deal with details of the brewery, trading and financial reports, major people involved (such as the Guinness family and Arthur Guinness), the history of the company, and details of the products they make or are associated with, such as Guinness Draught, Kaliber, Harp Lager, Guinness Foreign Extra Stout, Guinness Original, Guinness Red, etc. Products as listed here, and here. There should be a link to articles on the most notable products, such as Guinness. The current name for that article is St. James's Gate Brewery - however, for clarity, and to follow WP:Brewery name, the article should be renamed to Guinness Brewery.

The main and most notable of the company's products is Guinness Draught, also known as Guinness. And we should have an article on that product with the name Guinness (rather than Guinness Draught) as per WP:Common name. The Guinness article should deal with the brand Guinness Draught and its variants, such as Guinness Original (known as Extra Stout in North America - no widget, no nitrogen), and Guinness Red (made with a lighter roasted barley).

The brand Guinness Foreign Extra Stout is distinct from Guinness Draught and should either be dealt with in the company article or its own article. There are a number of differences between Guinness Foreign Extra Stout and Guinness Draught; the main ones are the strength and style - Foreign Extra Stout is 7.5% abv and is a Foreign stout, while Guinness Draught and it's variants range from 4.1% - 4.3% and is a Dry Stout or Irish Stout.

Clarity on the branding can be gained from the links above, or from Diageo's own website here (scroll down to the end:"Brand variants There are two main Guinness variants: Guinness Draught and Guinness Foreign Extra Stout. Guinness Draught, sold predominantly in Europe, North America, Japan and Australia, is available as Guinness Original, Extra Cold, Extra Smooth and most recently as Guinness Red.")

As we are agreed that there should be an article about the company called Guinness Brewery and an article about the main brand called Guinness, then we can close this mediation, and I can get on and implement the edits needed to make that happen.

It would be helpful for there to be an agreement that if RTG or myself disagree with each other's edits, that we open a discussion rather than revert.  SilkTork  *YES! 17:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You need one of two things 1. Guinness to pick up on Draught/Draft as their main trading name 2. a reliable source to say that Guinness as a company name is no more because today Guinness Draft is the main title. You are trying to say that we can define Detroit Techno by what they have heard of it in London. All you can define from that note is the Detroit Techno available in your town. The full Detroit range was still in Detroit, pumping away the whole time ;) ~ R.T.G 07:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. Guinness & Co is the main trading name for the branch of the Diageo company that is responsible for the Guinness brands. Guinness Draught is a brand name of Guinness & Co's main product. Guinness Draught is not a trading name. 2. Guinness is used as a trading name in public communication (advertising, the media, etc) rather more than Guinness & Co, which is the legal name for financial reports. We are talking about using Guinness Brewery as the company name as that fits with current guidelines, and makes things easier for the reader, which is our intention all along. The use of the Guinness name is confusing, and that is why I feel we need to tidy up these articles to make it clearer.
 * I am very busy at the moment so I don't have much time to spend on the article; however, I propose that I spend a couple of weeks improving the articles (it would take me that long because of limited time I have available to do the appropriate research to find the reliable sources and get the exact dates and details, etc), and then RTG reads over them and we have a discussion at that point about aspects which are still not clear. If that is acceptable, we can close this mediation.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * With your points 1 and 2 you are heading down the right track. With your points "Guinness Draft" and "Guinness Brewery" you seem to be making, or reproducing, pure words (except that it is Draught Guinness you are talking about not Guinness Draught). Describe in detail why use of "Guinness Brewery" meets the Wikipedia guidelines because where I can find them to have been trading as Guinness & Co, I do not find them to have been trading as "Guinness Brewery". It's very kind of you to invite me to review all your work but rest assured, as I explained before, I am not the most well informed about Guinness. I just knew that your changes in the line of "Guinness Draft" and "Guinness Draught" were based on wordplay. If you want to move the article to "Guinness & Co" or warrant a seperate article called "Draught Guinness", you should discuss it on Talk:Guinness and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland. You will find that "Guinness & Co" is an uncommon term, not un-worthy of note but possibly redundant as a title and that Draught Guinness should only be suitable for its own title based upon the nitrogen draught system but it matters not. Go to Ireland project. Invite to discussion on Guinness talk and discuss it there. Do not move the page to "Guinness Draft" or alter all the words and pictures to say "Guinness Draught is the actual topic" because that is actually incorrect. Cya ~ R.T.G 14:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks RTG. "Describe in detail why use of "Guinness Brewery" meets the Wikipedia guidelines" - that's been done above (see Brewery_name which then links to relevant Wikipedia guidelines). "If you want to move the article to "Guinness & Co" or warrant a seperate article called "Draught Guinness"" - no worries, I'll not be doing that, so no need to ask anyone. I will not do anything that is not correct, and I will use reliable sources.

Thanks for being so patient during this discussion, and for putting forward your ideas for us to discuss. It has been useful. I don't regard the time I have spent on this as wasted or frustrating at all as it has been helpful to see how the current structure of the article can be confusing for people. It has also been good to get the direct opinion of one of the readers of the article to get a feel for the level of understanding that people have when reading a Wikipedia article. Your input has been very valuable. Thanks.

I will now continue editing.  SilkTork  *YES! 17:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * See it is actually a small and often changing range of product. Over time they have produced a dozen or more variants including white beer (Breo). Like Hollywood film makers, they only export the stuff that is going through steady sales or so it would seem. Their history is that they bring out new beers at regular intervals and in fact they brought out 4 in the last 5 years, signifigant. Now, we need to talk to you about closing debates and agreeing not to edit artices while mediation is continuing. You have returned to the Guinness talkpage and made it appear that no more discussion may be entered into on the matter of moving the article. Also you have re-edited the Guinness article with the claim that "Guinness" is actually "Guinness Draught". You agreed not to do this. There is no acceptable reason for you to lock the talkpage discussion about moving the article/calling Guinness draught. Just leave it there thanks. The first edit you make this time is to change the word "type" for "brand" in the hatnote. You change standard Guinness logo to Draught Guinness logo. "Draught" and "Original" are products of Guinness. You remove links to William Sealey Gosset. You remove reference to the controversy over James Gate. The other edits are of little improvement although in size they are enormous and complex. For me, Mr SilkTork appears to be editing the Guinness article to generate publicity in the run up to the Guinness 250th birthday. He does claim this to be his line of work. The merit in that is minor Mr SilkTork compared to the benifit actual improvements would give the article which could do with a few. I am reverting you edits. You agreed here not to make any until the mediatior said you could, unless you are in a hurry? ~ R.T.G 14:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Will somebody give a shout when it's OK for me to continue editing the Guinness article? I'm taking this and the Guinness article off my watchlist, so I would appreciate a notice on my talkpage. Thanks  SilkTork  *YES! 16:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If it is not too much trouble we will discuss improvements to the Guinness article on the page Talk:Guinness. How do you like that? ~ R.T.G 17:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * To avoid further disputes, I think any improvements that are to be made in the article is to be discussed first. Upon agreements, then only should the edits be carried out. What do you guys think? Bejinhan  Talk   04:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Always be up for discussing things. I do not think that SilkTork is a high-level historian with intimate knowledge of Guinness so he should be open to discussion on every step and also the possibility of being wrong about a thing or two. ~ R.T.G 12:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)