Talk:Bud Light boycott/Archive 1

Archive 1

Firearm Kid Rock Used

He didn't use an "assault rifle" if you watch the video he was clearly using an MP5 submachine gun (not sure which variant though). Suggest that its changed to either a link to the SMG article or just say MP5. My source is the video itself since it seems all the news outlets have made the common error they always seem to make of calling everything an assault rifle. Would have made the edit myself but I have no idea how to edit properly and created this account just to ask if someone more capable then me would fix this. BudLightBoycottCorrection (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@BudLightBoycottCorrection How were you able to identify the gun from the video? The WP:Reliable sources guideline tells us that we should go with the media reports which say it was an assault rifle over a user's original analysis of the video to determine the type. —C.Fred (talk) 19:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@C.Fred, I actually started having doubts about the gun myself yesterday after re-watching the video, because it seemed to be more like an SMG. The user's been blocked and his replies to you removed, but he used this as a source, which confirmed that it was an MP5 SMG. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 00:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@Knightoftheswords281 If Rolling Stone is the only source making a specific identification of the weapon, I see no reason not to cite their story. —C.Fred (talk) 01:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I've already added it to the article @C.Fred. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 01:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I've been unbanned now, the admin just made a mistake. Anyway I'm glad this error has been fixed and I'm not sure how it works exactly but I guess this topic should be closed now since the issue is fixed. BudLightBoycottCorrection (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@BudLightBoycottCorrection There's really nothing to do to close it; it will just stay here until it's archived. —C.Fred (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

Many of the greatest offenders have been removed, but this article still depends heavily on unreliable or marginally reliable sources. These include Fox News, Newsweek, and Headline USA. Are there reliable sources that cover the same info? If not, it should be removed on WP:RS/WP:NPOV grounds. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Fox News has been accepted as a reliable source on Wikipedia since its inception and in multiple discussions at the Reliable Sources noticeboard, among other venues, in spite of repeated attempts by POV activist accounts to ban it. Links to Fox News articles are not blocked in Wikipedia because it is considered to meet the criteria. 152.130.1.18 (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS is more relevant here than WP:FOXNEWS, and I think you will find it reaches a different conclusion than what you have said. --Pokelova (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Due to the need for "up to the second" news on the situation, I support using less than reliable sources, as long as they're not given undue weight and have all their opinion stripped out. For example a NY Post article talking about the stock valuation dropping and cutting out all other opinions that the newspaper has. I also fully support replacing these sources as time progresses and more reliable sources develop. Scu ba (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Since we're not the news, we explicitly don't want to be "up to the minute", especially when it means using sub-par sourcing. If no reliable sources are talking about the stock drop, why should we? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I feel like as the story progresses, mainstream and more reliable sources will cover it. I think that this issue will be resolved by it will take time for mainstream news outlets to report on the story. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 05:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Who decides what's unreliable Jimmy Jimbo Johnson the V (talk) 04:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The community does, you can find the discussions that resulted in the consensus linked at WP:RSPSS. --Pokelova (talk) 05:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@Tpcolson: Regarding my "jihad", you may be interested in learning about WP:RSP, which was created to avoid having to rehash well-established notability consensus on popular sources like New York Post ("generally unreliable"), Fox News ("marginally reliable ... biased or opinionated for politics; use in-text attribution for opinions"), and Newsweek ("not generally reliable"). Particularly given the WP:BLP issues involved — including WP:NPF issues for the employee — these sources are woefully unsuitable. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

NPOV concerns?

@GorillaWarfare, can you explain how this article is biased? - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 16:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

LGBTQ bars boycotting due to AB's response

Is it worth mentioning that some LGBTQ bars have also boycotted Anheuser-Busch products due to AB's response to the original boycott? Some LGBTQ bars have actually stopped selling Bud Light and related products because AB appear to have backpedalled on their sponsorship of Mulvaney? I can find multiple sources for this, including PinkNews and Gay Times. Alex the weeb (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

It is probably worth mentioning, but with better sources than the ones you listed, e.g - https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/chicago-gay-bars-boycott-anheuser-busch-distancing-dylan-mulvaney-rcna83537 Red Slapper (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2023

It says shock stares instead of stock shares. And as long as you lock these your bad grammar won’t be fixed. 192.188.8.93 (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Boycott by "many" or "some" conservatives

@Master106: et al: I'd like to change "many" to "some" because the number of boycotting consumers of Bud Light is on order of only 20% of consumers of Bud Light, which is not "many" of them in the way I use the word. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 14:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I think better sources are needed for those sections. The current citation is from Billboard and only references Steven Colbert running a "a headline showing some conservatives calling for a boycott", which isn't a great source imo. Others on the page may be necessary to support that sentence and assertation. Glman99 (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

AB InBev does not own Modelo Especial

Constellation Brands owns Modelo Especial in the United States — the primary setting throughout this article. AB InBev does not. AB InBev only has Modelo Especial outside the United States.

Thus, these sentences are misleading at best, and I would argue outright false:

'"In May 2023, Bud Light lost its status as the top-selling beer in the United States to another product of AB InBev's, Modelo Especial."

"In early June it was also reported that Modelo Especial (which AB InBev also owns)"'

This is not a minor point either. Saying Modelo Especial is also owned by AB InBev gives the false impression that the boycott is not hurting the AB InBev in the U.S. The opposite is true. The first sentence is especially egregious because it talks about beer sales in the U.S.

Sources: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/14/business/bud-light-lgbtq-backlash.html https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/bud-light-loses-top-us-beer-spot-after-mulvaney-ad-boycott-2023-06-14/ https://www.brewbound.com/news/constellation-brands-eyes-no-1-beer-spot-for-modelo-as-gold-network-rallies-for-first-time-since-2020/ https://www.cbrands.com/collections/beer https://www.modelousa.com/ 2600:4040:5089:E500:54A2:9D7E:2470:FF35 (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Good catch, this has been edited. Glman99 (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Referring to cancel culture

@Glman99: and everyone else: Rather than my editing the article directly and risking an edit war, let's discuss it here. There are those who recognize the Bud Light boycott as cancel culture; for example, see this t-shirt. I would like to acknowledge this in the article in a way that does not invoke claims of WP:NPOV violations, non-encyclopedic, etc. Ideas? —Quantling (talk | contribs) 15:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

For those looking for a concrete suggestion to get things rolling: perhaps we could have the first sentence of 2023 Anheuser-Busch boycott § Boycott be

The partnership faced a rebuff from the American right and anti-trans groups, who called for canceling Bud Light and its parent company Anheuser-Busch.

—Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the best way to do this would be to quote a reliable source of figure calling it "canceling" or "cancel culture". Neither the t-shirt or the source you shared above meet WP:RELIABILITY guidelines. If we can find a figure or source calling it such, it could be added as a quote. As in, so-and-so stated a desire to "cancel Bud Light" or somesuch. Glman99 (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

A Google search for "canceling bud light" (with the quotation marks) turns up numerous hits. If I pick a few, emphasizing those that are text (rather than video) and those that are from recognizable news organizations (rather than individuals, political organizations, etc.), that should do it, yes? —Quantling (talk | contribs) 18:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

An individual's words would be fine, as long as they're a notable figure/commentator/celebrity. I think you're right, a source/journalist describing it as such would be better. Please refer to WP:RS for info on reliable sources, and WP:RSP could help, as it's got a list of what sources are considered reliable! Glman99 (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

What is the difference with any other boycott, since they are all expressions of "moral outrage"? Dimadick (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree that boycotts are generally an example of cancel culture. What makes cancel culture particularly relevant for this boycott is that the group boycotting correlates well with the group that objects to cancel culture — according to a number of non-encyclopedic sources that happily point out this seeming contradiction. I think that alerting the reader to the fact that there are many who label this boycott as cancel culture is relevant for this article. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 23:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

What? Your evidence to back up this assertion is... a misspelled t-shirt design from some no-name online store? Huh? -- Veggies (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

There are lots of hits. Most are from the left-wing sources; the t-shirt instead being in the minority. I don't follow you about a misspelling ... are you talking about "canceled" (predominantly American) vs. "cancelled" (predominantly British)? —Quantling (talk | contribs) 01:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Requested move 16 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks ping me! 17:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

---

2023 Anheuser-Busch boycott → 2023 Bud Light boycott – One-single source is mentioning a "Anheuser-Busch boycott". Most of the sources are referring to "Bud Light". Anheuser-Busch owns lots of brands (Stella Artois, Hoegaarden) and none of those brands are targeted (nor impacted) by the campaign. --Deansfa (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Support Per your reasoning on sources, as well as WP:CRITERIA. "Bud Light boycott" is more recognizable, is more likely to be searched, and is more precise. Glman99 (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, per WP:COMMONNAME "bud light boycott" is searched more commonly than "anheuser-busch boycott" Glman99 (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. I think 2023 Bud Light boycott should just be a redirect to the page. The boycott is on all Anheuser-Busch products; it is just mainly directed towards Bud Light. 2023 Anheuser-Busch boycott fits a lot more with what is happening. Master106 (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that Stella Artois, Hoegaarden (all Anheuser-Busch brands in the US) are boycotted? Or do you make that up? --Deansfa (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Weak support: I think it works either way, but since the focus is on Bud Light, I lean that way. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 13:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support. See WSJ, LA Times, etc. While the boycott affects AB InBev as a whole, it is targeted specifically at Bud Light. 162 etc. (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support per COMMONNAME and others. WPscatter ^t/_c 17:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support. That is how I heard about it. Comfr (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

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.

Quote is Not Accurate

Your article purports to quote Bud Lights VP of marketing as saying that the brand has been in decline “for a very long time”, but she said “for a really long time”. Using “really” as a superlative sounds juvenile, so your author fixed it for her. The entire article reads as if it is trying to sound objective and factual, but it intentionally ignores what really set people off. 2601:408:580:99A0:AD41:8ED9:C638:231B (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

"Very" is the word the source quotes her as saying, and I am not going to watch an hour long video to try and find one inconsequential word. It would be helpful if you provided a timestamp. As for the rest of your comment, what in your opinion is "what really set people off", and where can such information be found in reliable sources? We can't change the article based on just what you say (and don't say). --Pokelova (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The long-form quote is from the video, not the article, so we really do need a timestamp within the interview in the citation. —C.Fred (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

25:22 to 25:26 of 54:35, Make Yourself at Home, Episode 21. Plus a million edited versions on YouTube. 2601:408:580:99A0:B152:487C:BE45:91FB (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Inconsequential? I am an appellate lawyer, and I check every quote in my opponent’s briefs. Over 30 years, I’ve found thousands of inaccurate quotes. Never have the deviations not been beneficial to my opponents’ position as opposed to the truth. 2601:408:580:99A0:7D84:1495:BA25:4659 (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the timestamp. I've verified the quotation with the video (and the auto-generated CC, FWIW), changed the blockquote accordingly, and added a link to the podcast to the citation template. —C.Fred (talk) 03:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Now that the quote is fixed, would you care to tell us "what really set people off"? --Pokelova (talk) 04:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Most people participating in the boycott are not anti-trans. Sure, those who are may have been among the first to call for a boycott, but similar prior efforts have always fizzled. Joe Six-Pack might find transgenderism distasteful, but he doesn’t care if a trans woman enjoys his beer.

The problem was the Heinersheid video in the immediate aftermath of what would otherwise have been forgotten. People identify with certain products they use. They perceive themselves to be in a relationship with that brand. And when the makers of that product tell you that they like people of a culture that you find distasteful, but they dislike you (saying that what appeals to you is immature and out of touch) you feel spurned and rejected. In response, you spurn and reject their product. For instance, I’ve never bullied anyone, but I’ve also never bought a Gillette product after their “boys will be boys” ad. Now you have the answer, but you can’t use it because I’m not a reliable source. But as long as AB and the media keep describing this as a trans backlash, the boycott will probably continue. 2601:408:580:99A0:7D84:1495:BA25:4659 (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I struggle to believe more than 15% of the boycotters are even aware of the Heinersheid video let alone have it as their primary reason for boycotting. And I'm being generous with 15%. But as you said, there's not much point speculating without a reliable source. --Pokelova (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

You’re sort of missing the point. Bud Light’s primary customer demographic has been told that AB doesn’t like them. It doesn’t matter whether they watched the original Heinerscheid video or not.

Try doing a YouTube search with just the word Heinerscheid. Then tell me how long you had to scroll before getting something about a howitzer or a city in Luxembourg. 2601:408:580:99A0:7D84:1495:BA25:4659 (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm seeing mostly videos from people well known for already hating trans people, posted days to weeks after the boycott had begun. --Pokelova (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

You’re almost there. People who are anti-trans have tried to start many anti-trans boycotts with little success. But this time, they had a message that resonated—- Bud Light likes transgenderism but hates you. It is very easy for a customer to reject a product that he believes rejected him first. 2601:408:580:99A0:7D84:1495:BA25:4659 (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your perceptive analysis, even if things are getting a bit off topic... Tammbeck^talk 14:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

By all means, let us not state the truth if it personally insults Wehpudicabok. 2601:408:580:99A0:C501:D490:76C0:F842 (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Missgendering Dylan Mulvaney

Article does 2607:FB91:8E2A:1C1E:BDE2:34BD:D4A4:5788 (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

It does not appear to misgender. All references appear to follow MOS:GENDERID. Glman99 (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2023

Remove the word anti-trans. Replace with extreme terrorists. Anti-Trans is not a category or group and Wikipedia is not meant to be right or left leaning. :) 107.77.202.24 (talk) 10:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Cannolis, can you even make sense of that word salad in the request? Dimadick (talk) 08:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

"Characterize"

User:Quantling what connotations do you believe characterize holds? Per definition it is " to describe the character or quality of" and it does not appear in your cited section of the MOS. Glman99 (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

"Character" and "characterizations" imply something fundamental about the person (or other noun) being described. They are used to describe an aspect of the person that is not only true, but so true that it is defining or inherent -- what we do even when no one else is looking -- likely it is something that is difficult-to-impossible to change. I don't see that that strength is appropriate in the sentence in the article. Also, because of its strength, "characterized" is sometimes associated with exaggeration by the speaker; and in these cases instead carries some of the burdens of "assert" or "claim".

I don't find "describe" to carry any of those connotations. (In fact, "describe" is recommended at WP:CLAIM, though not necessarily for this context). Yes, this is all based upon personal experience by this native English speaker. I don't have any encyclopedic sources to back me up, though perhaps online dictionaries would support some of it. But if "describe" is comparable to "characterize" in your eyes ... the former would be my preference. Thanks —Quantling (talk | contribs) 20:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

NPOV violations

off topic discussion

Use of the terms "transphobes" and "anti-trans" contravenes WP:NPOV policy. 2A00:23EE:1568:728E:65C7:5A09:87EC:4B31 (talk) 01:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC) After some research, I actually think you may be correct. Per MOS:LABEL this is problematic, as the cited source does not refer to those protesting as such. Even though the page now uses the term "anti-trans" it still links to the page Transphobia. If referenced, it should be in-text with the source state. "According to (reliable source) individuals were involved". Glman99 (talk) 13:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC) I have edited the sentence to bring in line with the MOS. Glman99 (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC) I agree. I think including the word anti-trans and including that some news outlets characterize them as anti-trans implies that everyone who is boycotting bud light is prejudiced against trans people. Often times people exhibiting a biased perspective report what other people exhibiting a biased perspective are saying and them claim neutrality. https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/how-to-spot-types-of-media-bias#StoryPlacement (11 bias by story choice) https://www.britannica.com/science/confirmation-bias (more generally on confirmation bias). Many people boycotting budlight would say that they want to protect people. https://www.allsides.com/blog/term-anti-lgbtq-biased. (comapre the use of anti-LGBT to anti-trans). I think the bit about being characterized as anti-trans should be balanced with a statement that others did not characterize the boycott as anti-trans or by removing the reference to anti-trans altogether since it implies motives without evidence. See e.g. https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/conservative-bud-light-strategy-takes-down-leftists-their-rules I am aware that Wikipedia has often been accused of presenting a bias and that the way to combat this is to have more people involved in the editing process. Ideological bias on Wikipedia I will admit for the benefit of all that I support the Bud Light boycott. However, I do not think that means that my comments are without merit here and the prior editing suggests that more people on Wikipedia do not support the boycott. Dangdude11 (talk) 01:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC) Fox News is not a reliable source. Particularly in any topic which involves politics. Dimadick (talk) 08:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Fox News is a reliable for the perspective of conservatives and generally reports accurate facts. The source for calling this anti trans is an article apparently glorifying Stephen Colbert mocking Kid Rock. This is clearly not a neutral source and neither is Fox News https://www.billboard.com/culture/pride/stephen-colbert-mocks-kid-rock-bud-light-video-1235301639/ I don’t see how this source supports the conclusion that bud light boycotters are bigoted as a factual matter. As an opinion readable people can differ in their perspective. As such I stand by my point that this is not a neutral point of view. Dangdude11 (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC) Thank you for the link to that Fox article. That article explains the reason for the boycott with [Bud Light] partnered with transgender TikTok influencer Dylan Mulvaney, and its now-benched marketing lead, Alissa Heinerscheid, vowed to end her predecessors’ "fratty, kind of out-of-touch humor" in favor of a younger, woke-er "campaign that’s truly inclusive." By this explanation, the boycott is based upon Bud Light partnering with a transgender influencer, which does seem to indicate that "anti-trans" is appropriate. (@Dangdude11: If you read that differently, it would help me to understand your point of view. Please, explain!) Maybe instead I should ignore the first sentence and the second sentence is key? In that case, the campaign is either against the characterization "fratty, kind of out-of-touch humor" or it is against woke-er inclusion. Boycotting inclusion again comes across (to me) as anti-trans. Is it your argument that the key part is not these sentiments that come across to me as anti-trans but is instead all about the insult "fratty, kind of out-of-touch humor"? If that is the sole reason for the boycott then I agree that more evidence would be needed to characterize that as anti-trans. Is that your argument here, or am I missing it? Thanks —Quantling (talk | contribs) 13:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC) I don’t think I’m making an argument. My point is that calling the boycott anti trans is an argument. Given the link to the Wikipedia article discussing anti trans as a form of bigotry. Transphobia. Wikipedia seems to be making the point the the people are anti trans is an opinion based on an inference of their motives. I haven’t seen any source where the boycotters identify themselves as anti trans. Most often the use of the term anti trans is used by people with a left wing point of view. see e.g. https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/texas-new-spate-anti-trans-bills-us-worried-rcna58337 and compare Greg abbots characterization of the legislation as protecting children. https://www.texastribune.org/2023/05/17/texas-trans-kids-health-care-ban-sb14/ by characterizing the boycott as anti trans I think Wikipedia is endorsing a political viewpoint on the topic. (practically) every source that characterizes the boycott as anti trans has a left wing bias. I’m not aware of any neutral or right wing sources that do the same. Dangdude11 (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC) Thank you for helping me to understand your viewpoint. I have follow up questions. It seems generally accepted, left and right, that the boycott is based upon: Bud Light partnering with a transgender influencer. One possible interpretation of this statement is that the boycotters don't like that the influencer is transgender ... which is the definition of transphobia or anti-trans. If there is another interpretation of this stated reason. or if there is another stated reason, then surely some source, left or right, would have given it by now. Until we have an alternative explanation from a media source (or from someone who posts on this talk page), what excuse do we have to characterize this as anything but transphobia? It is quite possible that I am still missing your point; thank you in advance for trying again. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 19:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC) Essentially what you are saying is that not liking they Bud Light partnered with a trans influencer can only be explained by labeling the boycotters as anti trans. There are a lot of perspectives floating around about whether promoting these influences is beneficial for society. I personally believe that promoting a trans influencer in this manner motivates people to want to identify as trans based on the number of people identifying as trans in recent years compared with the past. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/10/science/transgender-teenagers-national-survey.html#:~:text=The%20number%20of%20young%20people,a%20diversity%20of%20gender%20identities. there are significant mental health issues that are associated with identifying as trans. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32345113/ I don’t think being concerned about cultural influencing gender identity of youth and mental health issues is “anti trans” in that I don’t think it shows animosity towards a group of people. This perspective is common in the USA. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/06/28/americans-complex-views-on-gender-identity-and-transgender-issues/ You have to admit that this article is at least implying that the boycotters are bigoted. That is a partisan view. Transphobia consists of negative attitudes, feelings, or actions towards transgender people or transness in general. Transphobia can include fear, aversion, hatred, violence or anger towards people who do not conform to social genderexpectations. In short you could say that the boycotters are concerned with the potential detrimental effects that this messaging would have on society and particularly our youth. To say that it’s anti trans, as a factual matter requires peering into someone’s mind. If you want to say the boycott is anti trans then you should be able to produce statements from boycotters indicating that they are bigoted towards trans people. I see why people believe Wikipedia has a left wing bias. Dangdude11 (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC) Thank you again for your thoughtful reply. Perhaps it boils down to whether ... promoting a trans influencer in this manner motivates people to want to identify as trans .... there are significant mental health issues that are associated with identifying as trans. and concerned with the potential detrimental effects that this messaging would have on society and particularly our youth are transphobic and bigoted. It appears that we disagree. Perhaps we can find references that address this specifically. Back when homophobia was more rampant, statements like these were common with respect to gay people. Many (most?) people now see the error of that era and are working to make it vanish completely. IMHO, the solution to the detrimental effects that society has on transgender individuals is to change society, not to deny transgender individuals the freedom of being themselves and being openly accepted in society. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 00:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC) Well if you want to base the article on your honest opinion then you can do that. It sounds like that’s what Wikipedia usually does. Dangdude11 (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC) Why do you suppose trans people have a higher than average suicide rate? Because trans people have kind of spoken about this, a lot, for a long time, and aren't being listened to. And I don't think someone is anti-trans for disagreeing, but I do think they would be for refusing to even listen. Wehpudicabok (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC) @Dangdude11: I want to base the article upon facts and reliable sources. (If my discussions here have come across as other than that then I have failed. Please accept my apologies.) I hope we can find reliable sources that address whether keeping youth from seeing openly transgender people is considered transphobia. I have learned from the present discussion that there is some disagreement over this, and I hope that we can find some reliable sources to elucidate this for the article. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 13:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC) I think you have confused facts and opinions. Whether that qualifies as transphobia is an opinion. It cannot be verified or falsified. Why not just stick to verifiable facts? Injecting transphobia into this article is injecting a personal opinion. The article could read something to the effect of “Bud Light’s decision to partner with a transgender social media influencer led to a boycott by people who disagreed with the decision” everything I just wrote in quotes is objectively true and not reasonably subject to dispute. Whether that qualifies as transphobia is not objectively verifiable and reasonably subject to dispute. Do you disagree? If so how can you prove that everyone boycotting bud light is transphobic I.e bigoted by implication? Dangdude11 (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC) See eg “Bud Light's promotion featuring a transgender social-media influencer led to calls for a boycott. The result: a drop in sales, as people both for and against the original promotion ditched the beer.”https://www.npr.org/2023/06/28/1184309434/bud-light-boycott-lgbtq-pride#:~:text=Bud%20Light's%20promotion%20featuring%20a,original%20promotion%20ditched%20the%20beer. i was wondering how including the term anti trans advances wikipedias neutral point of view perspective or serves an encyclopedic function. I also don’t see any reliable sources cited for the proposition that the boycotters are anti trans. Are there any neutral sources stating that? Dangdude11 (talk) 03:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC) The way I see it, if the definition of "anti-trans" encompasses the scenario "a promotion featuring a transgender social-media influencer led to calls for a boycott" then it is appropriate to use that word in the article; it helps the reader to understand the boycott in the larger context. For example, imagine trying to describe American slavery but avoiding mention that racism played a factor, on the grounds that it is an opinion. (No, I'm not trying to say that Bud Light boycotters are comparable to slave owners.) —Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Well I disagree. How can we resolve this dispute? What factual basis do you have for that perspective? You compared this issue to slavery. I think that comparison is off for a number of reasons. The chief among them is that It’s different to look back on a historical issue like slavery and say that racism played a factor in it. That’s definitely verifiable. But if someone were to say the only or main reason slavery existed was because of racism, that would be an opinion and I believe that is still debated to this day. I think there’s also a big difference with the comparison in that the transgender issue raises a number of mental health concerns. For me the suicide rate is alarming and justified approaching the issue more cautiously. I don’t want to promote mental health issues and at the same time I want to treat people with dignity and respect. Not a lot is really known about the transgender phenomena that is going on. To me, a lot of the research is heavily influenced by people with political motives and opinions about gender. Compare for example the historical scientific research on whether smoking causes cancer, whether opioids are habit forming, and whether penicillin is an effective antibiotic. In each of those cases the scientific community made some serious errors due to bias. Since you mentioned slavery, if I recall correctly the scientific community had even made false claims that supported racist ideology during the slavery era. Obviously more skeptical people rejected those claims based on their common sense observations and experience. Today we know that there aren’t significant differences between the races except appearance and some conditions like sickle cell anemia. Race is largely if not entirely a social construct. Earlier attitudes about race were wrong and were based in whole or in part upon a biased scientific community confirming their own beliefs. I believe that is what’s going on here with issues like this. Can you definitively disprove My opinion? If so, I would like to see a reliable source on the topic. Throughout the discussion I’ve seen no reliable sources to support your opinions. I think relying on the Wikipedia definition of anti trans is also not justified since that article isn’t neutral. I’m not sure whether Wikipedia views itself as a neutral reliable source or not. Maybe you can point me to something on this point? I think it’s not bigoted to say we need to do more research and keep and to keep an open mind on this issue. After all, the lives and wellbeing of people are at stake. I haven’t ever seen convincing evidence that this is a good thing. I am however aware of the significant mental health issues associated with identifying as transgender and it doesn’t make sense to me that this would be entirely caused by people’s attitudes and gender identity issues, like many people claim. i believe the causes of people identifying as transgender and of the transgender suicide and mental illness rate are open questions that hasn’t been answered yet. Thus I think your are injecting your opinions into an article that is supposed to be based kn facts. If you can’t see why someone would disagree with your opinion without being bigoted then I don’t think you are capable of providing a neutral perspective. I think if you are going to continue to put your opinions out there and state them as fact then Wikipedia should stop claiming to be neutral. The very fact that we are having this debate illustrates my point. If I am wrong and your opinion is actually a fact then show me. Dangdude11 (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC) I didn’t see a way to edit my prior comment that had a couple of typos and mistakes. I am writing from my phone and autocorrect sometimes messes me up too. “were based in whole or in part upon a biased scientific community“ Should read “we’re based in part upon a biased scientific community” Truthfully I don’t know the origin of racism. “people’s attitudes and gender identity issues” should read “people’s attitudes about gender identity issues” “that hasn’t been answered yet.” should read “that have not been answered yet” thank you for your understanding. I apologize for not writing correctly the first time. Dangdude11 (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC) "I believe the causes of people identifying as transgender and of the transgender suicide and mental illness rate are open questions that hasn’t been answered yet." What is your basis for saying that? Have you done any research on this topic? Have you read any scholarly articles on it, or any testimonials from trans people? You have a right to your belief, of course, but if there's no evidence for it, I do not see why Wikipedia should take your personal beliefs into account. A lot of people who have no direct experience with trans issues make assumptions based on gut feelings, without verifying anything. This leads to the exact sort of misconceptions that Wikipedia is supposed to be addressing, not perpetuating. Wehpudicabok (talk) 04:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC) I agree that Wikipedia shouldn’t take my personal beliefs into account, but I also believe that they shouldn’t not take someone else’s into account either. If you read the discussion above you’ll see that the other user suggested that the boycott could only be instigated by people who are bigoted/anti trans. I felt discussing my personal beliefs countered that user’s point (that was made without evidence). I think you are missing the point of the discussion if you think I’m the one trying to inject my personal beliefs in the article. With that being said I’ve done research and found no evidence. I have however seen that rates of people identifying as transgender are going up. In addition the younger you are the more likely lunate to identify as transgender. See sources cited above. I encourage you to reread the discussion if you think I’m suggesting that this article should incorporate mh personal beliefs. I have always been advocating for a neutral point of view. I have also always been requesting a reliable source for the articles argumentive statement that the boycotters are bigoted. In addition I have asked for sources to justify the inclusion of the world anti trans in the article to describe the boycott. I have also provided evidence that the use of the word anti trans to describe something related to LGBT issues is often used by people with a liberal bias. Wikipedia is supposed to have a neutral pov correct? Is a liberal point of view considered neutral by Wikipedia? i consistently answer other people’s questions but no one seems to bother with mine. Dangdude11 (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC) For your information. https://www.news-medical.net/health/Causes-of-Gender-Dysphoria.aspx “A lot of people who have no direct experience with trans issues make assumptions based on gut feelings, without verifying anything.” where is your source for this? “This leads to the exact sort of misconceptions that Wikipedia is supposed to be addressing, not perpetuating.” source? Dangdude11 (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC) If I am the "the other user [who] suggested that the boycott could only be instigated by people who are bigoted/anti trans." please allow me to clarify that I mean to be using bigoted and anti-trans to describe the action (the boycott) not the actors (the boycotters). As in, protesting the conducting of a sponsorship with an openly transgender individual is an action that is anti-trans whether or not the protestors intend it or believe it to be so. (This argument rests upon the definition of "anti-trans" as encompassing this action. I admit that I haven't presented any sources for that.) —Quantling (talk | contribs) 13:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC) Since there are no sources supporting the current article’s language I will change it to reflect a more neutral point of view. it’s beyond dispute that people are participating in the boycott because they disagree with the decision made by Bud Light. If anyone has any doubts about that, I would refer them to any source mentioned in this article covering the boycott. if a reliable source is located that actually addressees the issue and verified that the boycott is anti trans and almost exclusively a boycott by American conservatives then the article should be changed back. As it stands I don’t see the point in highlighting one group of participants over the other, other than to make a non neutral statement of opinion to advance an ideology. Than you. Dangdude11 (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC) The source you cited is adequate for supporting the assertion that the causes of gender dysphoria remain an open question. I guess it's my fault for not making myself clear in this regard: I agree with you about that part. There does not seem to be a consensus yet on that question. However, there is indeed a consensus on the question of what causes trans people to have a high suicide rate; the consensus is that it's due to mistreatment of trans people by society. Earlier, you wrote that "I am however aware of the significant mental health issues associated with identifying as transgender and it doesn’t make sense to me that this would be entirely caused by people’s attitudes and gender identity issues, like many people claim." Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean that it isn't true. Did you read Leelah Alcorn's suicide note? Because I did, and it sounded a lot like the personal histories of trans people I know. As for the generalizations I made at the end of my last post, they were based on personal experience. I was not intending them to form part of the actual article being discussed, but to illustrate what I think is happening here, which is that someone lets their gut instincts shape how they react to trans issues without checking whether their assumptions are actually true. It's something that I've seen many, many times in my experience as a trans person. "Wikipedia is supposed to have a neutral pov correct? Is a liberal point of view considered neutral by Wikipedia?" Yes, Wikipedia is supposed to have a neutral point of view. Reading back, your source for the assertion that the label "anti-trans" is left-wing, allsides.com, is... well, I don't know how to say this gently, but it's just flat wrong. It's very, very wrong. The site has this to say: "How the Right Sees/Uses the Term "Anti-LGBTQ" Uses the term selectively, is context-dependent. For example, the right may call a bill criminalizing homosexual acts “anti-LGBTQ,” but would not, for example, label a bill limiting transgender medical treatments for children as "anti-LGBTQ," because they believe limiting such medical practices is actually good for children. Argues certain legislation is not about hating or being against LGBTQ people, but about protecting children, fighting gender ideology, or preserving women-only spaces. In some contexts, sees the term “anti-LGBTQ” as biased because it makes it appear legislation is against LGBTQ people, rather than what they perceive as harmful actions, behavior or practices. And that's just... again, I don't know how to say this gently. It's a pile of nonsense. It's the same exact nonsense trans people have been debunking for years and years, and nobody ever listens to us. I know, I'm speaking in generalizations again, but it's because of my frustration at having to refute the same old nonsense over and over and over and over. Rightwingers can claim to be protecting children all they like, but since being trans is not in itself a form of harm, that claim makes no sense. Furthermore, when someone starts sending bomb threats to children's hospitals, I think they've lost credibility in regard to the question of what harms children. And "gender ideology" is itself a meaningless term that is used exclusively for the exact purpose of making actions that harm trans people sound like they're about something else. Allsides is taking a side by accepting this framing uncritically, whether they realize it or not. And lastly, "preserving women-only spaces" is very obviously not the intent of anyone who advocates for spaces to determine sex based on birth assignment, since that would force trans men into those spaces. Like I said, this is all stuff that trans people and our allies have been talking about for many, many years. And the fact that the same old nonsense is being circulated to this day, without acknowledgement of anything we're saying, is exhausting to me personally. I apologize for the excessively long reply. I had a lot to say. Wehpudicabok (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC) Notably absent from your dispute about my perspective is a reliable source to justify your assertions. I understand that you are trans and have your own individual viewpoint based on that identity. I also understand that Wikipedia is supposed to base its articles on reliable sources, not personal viewpoints, as you said earlier. Truthfully I don’t understand how the bomb threat you referenced relates to the boycott. I don’t think you can hold someone responsible for the acts of another just because there is some minor overlap in opinions. Obviously I don’t support bomb threats or violence against any group of people. In my view violence is wrong unless there’s substantial justification such as self defense or defending others from an immediate threat of violence and only to the extent that it’s reasonably calculated to put a stop to that violence. If we were talking about instigations of violence against trans people, it would be abundantly clear that the label of “anti trans” would apply. Here, people are refusing to buy beer. Dangdude11 (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC) "Notably absent from your dispute about my perspective is a reliable source to justify your assertions." Most of my post was about deconstructing transphobic rhetoric in the source you provided, not making my own assertions, so I'm not sure what assertions you're referring to here. I did make the assertion that "the consensus is that [the high rate of suicide among trans people is] due to mistreatment of trans people by society," but like... I know this because I know trans people who have struggled with suicidal ideation in the past. A lot of them, actually. I'm speaking from my own life experience here. I don't expect Wikipedia to take my life experience as a reliable source, obviously, but I know what being trans is like. "Truthfully I don’t understand how the bomb threat you referenced relates to the boycott." Well, for one thing, Bud Light factories have also received bomb threats, as the very page we are discussing makes clear. Seems to be a common occurrence when people are angry at trans people these days. I actually mentioned this a while back, but then deleted my contributions to this page shortly after, because getting into arguments with people who refuse to listen to what trans people are going through has proven disastrous for my mental health. I think I was probably right to do so. Wehpudicabok (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC) There's also this report from the UCLA School of Law attesting to factors contributing to the trans suicide rate as including "discrimination or mistreatment in education, employment, housing, health care, in places of public accommodations, or from law enforcement", "rejection by their family of origin," and "conversion therapy." The source also points out some factors that lower the likelihood of suicide: "supportive families," "hormone therapy and/or surgical care" and living in a state that hasn't passed anti-trans legislation. So I'd call that a reliable source to support my assertion. By the way, do you know where I found that source? It was linked from Wikipedia's own article on transphobia, which you quoted above. Perhaps you should read it. It might help you to understand that this is a discussion that's been happening since before you found out about it. Wehpudicabok (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 August 2023

Please add in a line at the end of the introduction along the lines of "While most boycotts are short-lived and have no significant effect on sales, this boycott has been notable for having a lasting effect as the company has experienced a continued plunge in sales months after the boycott's inception." Cable10291 (talk) 10:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The LA Times citation doesn't mention Anheuser-Busch, and the CBS citation doesn't say anything about the boycott being notable for having a lasting effect when most boycotts historically have not. TL;DR: this is WP:SYNTH Xan747 (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 August 2023

I suggest two edits to the couple instances mentioning mentions of AB InBev's stock and performance. Currently the lede says" In May 2023, the AB InBev stock price fell 20%, enough for them to be classified as a bear stock by Forbes while HSBC cut AB InBev's stock to a hold." A stronger and more accurate sentence would be "In May 2023, AB InBev's stock price fell 20%, enough for it to be classified as a bear stock by Forbes. HSBC Securities downgraded its rating on the company from 'Buy' to 'Hold'.

Another sentence says, "On May 10, HSBC downgraded AB InBev's stock rating due to the drop in sales". HSBC is only one sell-side equity research provider so a more accurate sentence would say, "On May 10, HSBC downgraded its rating of AB InBev from 'Buy' to 'Hold' amidst the boycott."

OpenSourceAdvocate56 (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

References

 Done ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

AB brand sales on 6 August 2023

Should the Response section include some mention of AB brand sales? For example, on 6 August 2023 it was announced that AB would sell 8 brands, including Shock Top and Blue Point. This was reported by the WSJ and others. Lawonk (talk) 05:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

"Deprivation" or "depravity"?

Under the heading "Boycott" the third paragraph contains this: "He was joined shortly after by conservative rock musician Ted Nugent, who called Anheuser-Busch's Dylan Mulvaney partnership 'the Epitome of Cultural Deprivation'..." (emphasis added). I presume that Nugent meant to say "the epitome of cultural depravity" since "deprivation" means to be deprived of, or denied something necessary, which has no relevance that I can see, while "depravity" refers to something claimed to be immoral or decadent. I think that this should be pointed out, perhaps as follows: "He was joined shortly after by conservative rock musician Ted Nugent, who called Anheuser-Busch's Dylan Mulvaney partnership 'the Epitome of Cultural Deprivation (sic)'... likely intending to describe his perception of But Light's promotion of transgenderism as being depraved." Yes, I understand that putting words in someone else's mouth is tricky, but the statement as it stands is simply incoherent and deserves some form of explication, rather than leaving it in its incoherence. Thoughts? Bricology (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we should guess about what Ted Nugent was thinking or what he meant to say. Though adding a "sic" (probably by using the {{sic}} template) might be okay, as this is an unusual turn of phrase. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Reason?

Oddly, even after reading this quite substantial article, I was left with the same question: what is the reason for this boycott? Apparently, it has something to do with Dylan Mulvaney, but the reason is never clearly spelled out. 93.143.112.10 (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Deleted comments that are debating a topic, not about improving the article.EdJF (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I second the request for a modification to the article to address: what do advocates of the boycott indicate was done wrong by Anheuser-Busch? For example, Caitlyn Jenner says "Let’s not ‘normalize’ any of what this person is doing. This is absurdity!" -- but what specifically is this person doing that Jenner objects to? Marjorie Taylor Greene says "I introduced a bill to stop gender-affirming care on kids & they want me dead. I’m being swatted while fake women visiting Biden are being swooned" -- did Mulvaney or Anheuser-Busch call for Greene's death? I see lot's of generic backlash, but what specifically is being objected to? —Quantling (talk | contribs) 20:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Further down on the talk page from here it says the boycott is gaining traction because of the fact/perception that "Bud Light likes transgenderism but hates you" where "you" includes those who are boycotting. Is there a reliable source for this explanation of the boycott? If so, please add it to the article. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 20:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems that those boycotting do not want their children to see transgender individuals and/or do not want their children to see others accepting transgender individuals as normal; and they are boycotting because Anheuser-Busch is seen to be thwarting this. But mine is nowhere near an encyclopedic source. If this is correct and you have an encyclopedic source, please add it. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 13:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Could it be due to some being against the sponsorship? Cwater1 (talk) 03:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed it could be, but that begs the question, why are the boycotters against this sponsorship (but not against the hundreds(?) of other sponsorships)? One answer offered in these discussions is that the boycotters are anti-trans. But if the true explanation is different from that or more subtle than that; what is it? —Quantling (talk | contribs) 17:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Anti-LGBQ? Anti-trans is the same thing. Not 100% sure. If reasons are added in the article, it would have to be a WP:Reliable source. Cwater1 (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@EdJF, And, what you did here was not a good way to get out of a discussion. ZanzibarSailor (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

https://www.dailywire.com/news/first-bud-light-and-now-target-matt-walsh-goes-viral-with-tweet-about-making-pride-toxic-for-brands Affinityresolve (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

It seems to say a reason in the lead. It is said in a persuasive manner. Cwater1 (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Cwater1: Is the persuasive "reason in the lead" the thing about Bud Light's sponsorship being political? (Or something else?) I could use further explanation on how politics comes into this. Is it deemed political because there are voters and candidates who wish to make transgender surgery illegal, and Bud Light's sponsorship of Mulvaney (and her celebration being one year past the surgery) is deemed to be taking sides in this legality debate? —Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I think anti-LGBT protest is a reason. I think. Cwater1 (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

No, the reasons being cited in some sources are still missing from the article. 2600:1001:A110:DFB2:68B9:8E27:F22:66CC (talk) 04:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

A post here by Greggens that was just reverted included "[The boycott] happened because Dylan Mulvaney posts sexually-explicit videos that are accessible to children." If you have reliable sources to back this statement, I would welcome their addition to the article. Also, reliable sources that comment on what specially was considered sexually explicit would be good. (It would be significantly better if the sourced material is contemporaneous with the start of the boycott rather than a post hoc explanation.) Thanks —Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

If you're looking for a reliable source, there's a piece published on April 6, 2023, which quotes Caitlyn Jenner's response to Mulvaney's TikTok video where the latter talks about her bulky crotch: “'There is a difference between acceptance and tolerance, and normalizing exposing your genitals in a public way and a public place,' Jenner tweeted. 'I do not support that at all, in the slightest.'" The TikTok video can be directly accessed from the piece. As the article we're editing has already pointed out, TikTok is a platform easily accessible to children, so it isn't hard to figure out why Bud Light's collaboration with Mulvaney was so unpopular.

As far as other possible motivations for the boycott are concerned, the boycott was most definitely not "anti-trans" at all. Andreas Krieger is a former East German athlete who used to be a woman, but conservatives don't criticize him—let alone boycott anything with which he's involved. Conservatives aren't even boycotting the many other alcoholic drink companies known to support LGBT causes. Happy Dad Hard Seltzer is known to have collaborated with Caitlyn Jenner, yet nobody called for a boycott of Happy Dad. In fact, on April 14, 2023, Jenner herself tweeted a possible reason why Bud Light was being boycotted but not Happy Dad, and it had to do with Bud Light not knowing its target audience and not giving its customers what they want.

Incidentally, I've also deleted from the article a lot of pro-conservative lines about how the company has struggled financially since the boycott, since it couldn't be proved by citation that the events mentioned in those now-deleted lines were directly caused by the boycott.Greggens (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The New York Post is not a reliable source. Your view that the boycott was not anti-trans, if supported by reliable sources, can be added to the article. In the absence of such sources, framing the existing article content as if that view is true worsens the NPOV of the article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 February 2024

Include a statement contextualizing the losses in sales, as the entire beer market had been declining Year-to-date. The below source states a 5% decline in the entire market throughout the year, not just the month following the boycott. Omitting this information removes the context for the reasons behind this particular brand's decrease during the same year. https://www.livenowfox.com/news/us-beer-sales-dip-lowest-level-bud-light-fallout-wasnt-only-factor

The same source also states that the brand Modelo especial had previously been increasing market share, closing the gap on Bud light previous to the controversy in this article.

Wikipedia should be a nonpolitical source of information according to the tutorial I went through and unfortunately this page lacks a balanced approach in some paragraphs. Factsoverfakes (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

"Anti-trans"

Admittedly, I shouldn't have changed the wording here. But I will ask if, in the lede, the quotations are really necessary, since it is indirect speech. Pinging @Glman:, who reverted my WP:BOLD edit. JeffSpaceman (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it's fine to drop the quotes in the lead, as the attribution is clear and it's not a full quote. glman (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate the feedback. JeffSpaceman (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 13 May 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 06:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

---

2023 Bud Light boycott → Bud Light boycott – Remove the date. There is no other notable Bud Light boycott in history, and the current one has continued into 2024.[1][2] TarkusAB^talk/contrib 17:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 10:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support: I still am seeing backlash against Bud Light to this day Sergei zavorotko (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: WikiProject Discrimination, WikiProject Business, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Politics/American politics, WikiProject LGBT studies, WikiProject Sociology/Social movements task force, WikiProject Sociology, and WikiProject United States have been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - that sounds too generic of a title for a specific point in time event. I think more commonly we would instead rename it to 2023-2024 Bud light Boycott. But before going there, are we really certain that as an event this is warranted? The stock recovered at the end of 2023 and beyond normal other economic fluctuations that beer companies are subject to, I think we’d need some stronger reason to even make that rename as I don’t think those two articles make a strong enough case to warrant it. Raladic (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - On the contrary, the page seems to indicate most activity took place in 2023. The proposed name is too generic IMO, the current fits and unless major activity takes place in the future "2023" should be fine. glman (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support: As the news articles indicated, this boycott is still on-going, and it may never end. This is the only Bud Light boycott to date that has any significant impact, therefore it does not needs to be given a specific date. Hzh (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  No, the two news articles speculate on a multitude of reasons, while also acknowledging that other reasons like general sales across the market shifted, and we don’t use speculation and WP:CRYSTALBALLs on Wikipedia for editing. Raladic (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support per the nomination; I don't think any other particularly meaningful boycott relating to Bud Light has happened. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

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.

Background section

I think that the information on Alissa Heinerscheid is useful, especially regarding her statement on Bud Light being a brand in decline. However, is the following bit on Mulvaney necessary? There's already an article for her, so people who want to know more can about read it there. Would reduce the size of the article a bit. No strong views either way, just a suggestion. John Smith's (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)