Talk:Founders Brewing Company

Reads like an Advertisement

I created this article a while ago, but it appears to have been modified to read like an advertisement and no longer meets the criteria for an objective encyclopedic entry. I have removed or altered portions for objectivity.--Aeranis (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Attempts to cleanup

I agree with Aeranis that this article needs quite a bit of help. Quite a lot of the information was out of date, and quite of bit of it looked like it was written by a Founder's employee. I updated some of the numbers, and also referenced and rewrote the Founder's Fest section, which was very biased IMO. I think there's still more to do, so I'll revisit this page soon. --Jonddunn (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Founders Employee Edits

There has been an edit made to the history section by a Founder's employee (they very politely say so in the edit summary). Unfortunately the edits they made are not referenced. The previous version saying that Founders is available in 32 states (versus the 37 claimed by the employee) is correctly cited. I am going to revert the edits and try to find a source that can back up the 37 state claim. They have also changed the production capacity to 900,000. Further down the article, I correctly cited that Founders hopes to achieve 900,000 barrels per year once the current expansion underway is completed. To my knowledge, that expansion is not yet complete. Again, I will try to find sources that can speak to the current production capacity. --Jonddunn (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Founders Brewing Company. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101016212653/http://www.foundersbrewing.com:80/events/live-music to http://www.foundersbrewing.com/events/live-music

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

No longer a craft brewery?

Hi @BeIsKr:

I noticed you added in the information about Founders ownership, and how that no longer qualifies them as a "craft brewery" per the Brewers Association guidelines. The very first line of the article calls them a craft brewery, so do you think that also should be updated?

I'm unaware of any "official" requirements for craft/micro, etc., beyond the Brewers Association, and I guess I am also unsure how official that really is. Are they considered to be the authority on craft brewing? Do people within the craft brewing community no longer consider Founders Brewing a craft brewery? Thanks! --Jonddunn (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll go and update the first sentence. As for the definition of a craft brewery, in all the craft beer literature I've encountered the Brewers Association definition is accepted as an industry standard, at least in the US. BeIsKr (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Controversy

The solution to WP:UNDUE attention on a single current event is not to devote more coverage to it, on only one side. This is an unresolved HR dispute that's getting a fair amount of press this week because the idiot manager said something idiotic. Giving it as much space as the Taprooms or Founders Fest sections is a textbook example of WP:RECENTISM. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

And completely omitting any reference to the main thrust of that coverage is - if you'll excuse the term - whitewashing. It's no longer a HR dispute, it's a lawsuit being widely covered. We could probably stand to lose some of the promotional coverage from the rest of the article. I would like to include at least one quote from the GM's deposition, but I'll compromise on just the one? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

How is selecting one quote NPOV? Do you realize that there's also a quote from the plaintiff saying the manager is not racist? Should we include that too? Or should we steer clear of the clickbait gotcha journalism altogether? What's NPOV at this point is to report what the allegations of the suit are, and what the company's response is, not to spin things with quotes from one side or the other.

Plus, you've missed the point about Recentism: "a phenomenon on Wikipedia where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events. It is writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view. This can result in, among others: Articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens." "A news spike is a sudden mass interest in any current event, whereupon Wikipedians create and update articles on it, even if some readers later feel that the topic was not historically significant in any way." That's exactly what's going on here: you're trying to cover a breaking news story, but that's not WP's job. This incident could lead to Founders being shunned in Detroit, damage its reputation and sales nationwide, and prompt the new owner to put their own people in charge. Or it could lead to a quiet settlement next month, with the idiot manager sacked, and it's never heard about again. We don't know, and we shouldn't try to anticipate that. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, obviously WP:CRYSTAL applies, and so I obviously am not anticipating anything. Just reporting on what the multiple and major reliable sources are saying. Which includes the quotes (of which I only want to include one); and which include the rubuttal from Founders, which I also added. WP:NPOV in action. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Just because the media goes for the sensational quotes, that doesn't mean we're supposed to. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)