Talk:Anheuser-Busch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Claims regarding "Anheuser family"[edit]

I'm removing this entire paragraph (under the history section), until someone can verify. I haven't found anything to back up the claims & referencing Anheuser rather than Busch is also a bit of a red flag.

The German heritage of Anheuser, along with its major competitors such as Miller, seriously affected the corporation's public image during World War I, when Anti-German sentiment in the United States reached moral panic proportions. Poor public relations, such as when part of the Anheuser family elected to stay in Germany after the war broke out to help with the home front efforts against the Allies, did not help change the perception of a large number of Americans who were predisposed by nascent mass media to distrust German-origin products during the first World War.

--Chimino (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Budweiser bill[edit]

Added this:

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 2014 FIFA World Cup because Budweiser, a major World Cup sponsor is 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".[1][2]

Wholesomegood (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Brazil Moves To Ease Soccer Beer Ban, As World Cup Spat With FIFA Grows, NPR (March 07, 2012).
  2. ^ Brazilian Senate approves ‘Budweiser bill’ ending dispute with FIFA over World Cup sponsoring, Merco Press, (May 10, 2012).

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anheuser-Busch. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Improve reference[edit]

I don't know how to improve ref to Herbst, this is what i have so far but not sure how to change it.

{{cite book |last1=Herbst |first1=Henry |authorlink1=Henry Herbst |last2=Roussin |first2=Don |authorlink2=Don Roussin |last3=Kious |first3=Kevin |authorlink3=Kevin Kious | date=2009 |title=St. Louis Brews: 200 Years of Brewing in St. Louis, 1809-2009 |pages=32 |isbn=978-1933370910}}

209.93.15.127 (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Anheuser-Busch. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed broken link in the references[edit]

Reference 1 was a link to a web page that no longer exists at anheuserbusch.com. I replaced the reference with the url to the current history page at that site. Siegele (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Anheuser Busch has a new logo. https://www.brandinginasia.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/New-Anheuser-Busch-Logo.jpg FireDragonValo (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: CMN2160A[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2022 and 15 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nikoulacatherine (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Zariagibson (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal: 2023 Anheuser-Busch boycott[edit]

Not merged czar 01:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Per WP:NOTNEWS, I don't believe 2023 Anheuser-Busch boycott justifies a standalone article. Perhaps with the benefit of time it will seem more likely to be notable in the long-term, but I think for now the topic ought to live at the 2023 Anheuser-Busch boycott Anheuser-Busch#Controversies section. There are editors on the boycott article talk page arguing that we should use poor quality sources because the available sourcing is so sparse, which seems like a major red flag. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging possibly interested users from Talk:2023 Anheuser-Busch boycott: @Knightoftheswords281, Firefangledfeathers, Pokelova, Scu ba, and FictiousLibrarian: GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking GW: did you mean perhaps to say that "for now the topic ought to live at the Anheuser-Busch#Controversies section"? I am concerned about the sourcing the new article relies on; I do think a merge here would be the safest, with some content maybe also heading toward Dylan Mulvaney. There are quality news sources covering this topic, like The Independent and Washington Post, but they are not primarily focused on the issue through the boycott lens. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ack, yes, bad copypaste. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, other than some articles on the war in Ukraine and some global election updates a day or two after they happen, this is the first current event that I've edited significantly. If you believe that it would fit better skimmed down and put in the Anheuser-Busch article than I would support that, as long as that's what the consensus is. Scu ba (talk) 02:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ping. I agree that a merger would be a good idea since the boycott article has had trouble standing on its own. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 02:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As the article creator, I'm seeing people complain complain about the Fox and Newsweek sources, however, even before @GorillaWarfare removed large chunks of the article content, they still accounted for like a fifth of the sources, with most others coming from WP:RS sources. There are NY Post sources, but I purposely avoided them and were mainly added by @Scu ba and an IP. Fact is, this is a major controversy unlike most other culture war boycotts in that this was a conservative-led one of a scale never seen before that has been continuously sustained for weeks and has some effect. In fact, there were a lot more WP:RS coverage of this listed in the article that I presume were removed in the mass content deletions conducted by you. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 02:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All sources that I removed were of dubious quality at best, which you can verify by looking in the page history. Frankly the sources don't support that this is a boycott "of a scale never seen before", nor that there's been much impact — the supposed impact was incredibly cherry-picked or from NYPost/etc. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Due to it being a conservative issue, most of the sources talking about it where conservative. It just so happens that most conservative media in the US fails to pass WP:RSP (Post, Fox, Caller). I felt that as long as the opinion pieces of the articles where cut out and just the numbers they where reporting where included that maybe the sources could be salvaged. But I would totally understand and even support their removal. Scu ba (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Bud Light transgender controversy" — The boycott itself is not notable, but the controversy is. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Nice article, lots of good work done by Knightsofthesword281, but makes sense to merge with Anheuser-Busch#Controversies. Also, don't see any issues with Fox News articles, they seem to capture the controversy in a straightforward way.EdJF (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose I wouldn't be too upset with a merge, but there's currently enough well-sourced text at the other article that I think it stands on its own. If a large volume of the text is seen as trivial (I'm agnostic on that), then perhaps a merge may be inorder, but as it stands now, porting all of the text from the Boycott article seems like it would overwhelm this one. --Jayron32 18:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Support: There is no Wikipedia page for the 2020 Goya Foods boycott, so I don't see why we need a page for this. Keeping this page could possibly lead to accusations of bias. If this boycott becomes a historical event, maybe it could stay, but I think it's too soon. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just because the wrong this was done once before in the past, doesn't mean that the wrong thing needs to continue to be done forever. That's a really terrible rationale. --Jayron32 13:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
*Update: My support is definitely weak, and I am open to changing my opinion. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 03:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It seems at this point that this news event is "sticky" enough to justify its own article. Obviously, down the road, it can be evaluated whether it is best to retain it as a standalone article or merge it into a larger one. Ergo Sum 14:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Support While it will still cause some issues when housed on the main page, I think it fits better there with the size and scope of the controversy/boycott and article. Glman99(talk) 19:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose merge There are plenty of reliable sources for this event. And similar 'culture war' boycotts have their own articles: Chick-fil-A and LGBT people, Boycott of Maryland's 1st congressional district, 2018 NRA boycott, Boycott of The Ingraham Angle, etc.130.74.59.120 (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: You know, the creator of this article did a good job, and there are several other pages for boycotts, as noted above by 130.74.59.120 I think it should stay. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 04:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I've come around after comparing some examples and reviewing the additional sources that have been added to the page. I think it's at least as well-written and extensive as previous articles, and has potential to continue to be "sticky". Glman99 (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose at least for now. The boycott content will swallow this article up if we merge now. After the boycott ends, I think it will be a lot easier to contextualize and decide. There is no race, and having two articles is not hurting anything. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 13:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose wide press coverage about this specific event. The coverage is still ongoing, for example this article from today. --Deansfa (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Continues to get major coverage like yesterday’s Wall Street Journal piece. Thriley (talk) 03:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2023[edit]

Remove Alissa Heinerscheid (Vice President) from key people. She is not a member of company leadership. Source: https://www.anheuser-busch.com/about/leadership Samoomoo (talk) 04:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: She is mentioned in this capacity by the source in the article, which establishes her as a notable key individual. The distinction of "company leadership" is not essential to this. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate company information.[edit]

The first words incorrectly state AB is an Amercian company headquartered in St. louis Missouri, as it refers to another article describing this company as having a parent company with the same name. AB is the parent company and it's headquartered in Leuven Belgium. 69.123.125.184 (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Anheuser-Busch is headquartered in St. Louis. The parent company, which is mentioned in the second sentence, is AB InBev, and that one is in Belgium. You've confused the subsidiary with the parent company. --Jayron32 14:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: NAS 348 Global Climate Change[edit]

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 29 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jitman43 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: BruinsHockey1234, Giancarbonell.

— Assignment last updated by TotalSolarEclipse (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Bud Man" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Bud Man has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 24 § Bud Man until a consensus is reached. GnocchiFan (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting[edit]

Never posted before, but something is wrong with this page, there seems to be a section placed above the page introduction? 153.33.188.28 (talk) 03:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anheuser-Busch&oldid=1218334537"