Talk:Sweet Revenge (liqueur)

General

Hi, Ryan Vesey asked me recently to help you a bit with this article. For starters, you can compare your article with Southern Comfort and Domaine de Canton (liqueur), comparable drinks.

My main problem with the article is that is resembles an advertisement. The information should be presented on a far more neutral way. You don't have to write poetry here, the bare facts are good enough.

The whole story in History and Cooper Family Legacy is, to my opinion, superfluous for this article. That would fit better in a separate article about the company.

The article is also a bit confusing. You say it is marketed in the USA in 2012, but you use references that are far older. You should use only references that tell something about the subject, so the references should tell something about Sweet Revenge. I doubt if the whole part about mixology is usefull to tell something about the subject.

My advice is to cut out the sections: History and Cooper Family Legacy, Mixology and the Craft Cocktail, References and Notes. The rest should be neutralized and more concentrate on the bare facts.

Happy editing. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC) I will come back later for further advice. This were the main issues.

Hi, Big Wind. Thanks for your thoughts.

In what ways, specifically, does this draft entry on Sweet Revenge Liqueur remind you of "an advertisement"? Specifically, what advertisement does it remind you of, and in what way are you specifically qualified to evaluate advertisement copy writing?

Have you read this entry? In what way do you think an entry about a product marketed by the company that also markets Domaine de Canton should not include mention of this fact? How specifically do you feel that "History and Cooper Family Legacy" -- when we are discussing a product that is the product of the history and legacy of the Cooper family -- is not relevant or should be "neutralized"? Do you know the field of cocktails and spirits sufficiently well to understand that these are relevant topics and subheadings to include?

What, specifically, is an example of "neutralized" writing? Are you good at executing "neutralized" writing, and can you show me some examples of your own well-neutralized work? What, specifically, are your qualifications in the field of "neutralized" writing?

Finally, if you have a personal connection or conflict of interest with respect to the two published Wiki articles you have cited as excellent examples of "neutralized writing" about cocktails and spirits (i.e., Southern Comfort and Domaine de Canton), please disclose it honestly here.

Thanks for your offer of "further advice", Big Wind. I'm good. Let's start with some specifics about the "advice" you've already offered.

Sebastian Lake (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

To answer your question about me being qualified to advice you: yes, I am qualified due to the fact that I am an experienced editor, registered in 2006. For more: see User:Night of the Big Wind. Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Night of the Big Wind has not made a single edit to those articles. He provided them for you so that you could see how your article should be arranged. His qualifications are much better than mine, considering that he has been here 3 years longer. I agree with his argument that it looks like an advertisement. That was my initial impression too. He is correct that "History and Cooper Family Legacy" should be removed. The paragraph on Domaine de Canton (liqueur) is unrelated and should certainly be removed. In fact, if you removed that paragraph and you removed the section heading "The liqueur was developed and is marketed by John Cooper, of Independence Spirits, LLC, of Miami, Florida. Cooper is also the producer of Domaine de Canton French Ginger Liqueur, a cognac base flavored with honey, vanilla and ginger syrup. Miami-based Maurice Cooper et Cie, LLC, is the distributor of both liqueurs." and possibly "John Cooper, 36, is a son of the liquor importer N. J. Cooper, known as Sky, and is a grandson of the wine and spirits merchant Maurice Cooper, who acquired Charles Jacquin et Cie after Prohibition." I would also remove the section on Mixology and the Craft Cocktail as that would be more appropriate in another article. You can use Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners to learn how to format your inline citations. There is a useful video on that page. Your section on liquor or liqueur makes the article read more like an essay. I suggest turning it into a note like I did with this edit so it would look like this. I am pretty disappointed that you haven't made a single edit to this page since you first brought the issue up. We told you that improvements needed to be made. It isn't going to be ready to be published until that happens. Ryan Vesey Review me! 12:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Ryan and BIg Wind:

When I drafted the entry for Sweet Revenge Liqueur, I referred specifically to the Domaine de Canton and Southern Comfort entries to better understand the format required by Wikipedia's community of proof readers.

Big Wind's suggestion that I model the Sweet Revenge entry on Southern Comfort and Domaine de Canton is ironic.

I do think it is amusing that Big Wind believes my entry reads like an advertisement. To my personal taste, both of the entries Big Wind likes read like advertisements -- and in fact, they are advertisements. For example, the Southern Comfort entry includes mention of a cocktail suggestion. When you click the footnote, you link not to a historic advertisement, but instead to a Southern Comfort web marketing page that requires consumers to log in, and is obviously part of a web marketing and advertising campaign. This is acceptable?

I think what we are all three discovering together is that Wikipedia inadequately covers the category of spirits. To bring the conversation full circle, this is why I am interested in getting this entry posted. I'd like to work my way through the bar shelf, and supply Wikipedia with as many well-written and informative entries about cocktails and spirits as possible.

Please don't frustrate me in this task. Let's try to distinguish between helping me learn how to game the Wikipedia system as well as you both do. While at the same time, let's not try to impose on others your own opinions about what makes good writing, good. Ryan, I haven't heard much from you on this. But Big Wind, it is simply not your place to tell me that my writing is either "poetic" or "needs to be neutralized." And again, as demonstrated above, your opinion about what makes an entry sound like an advertisement may, or may not be valid.

The difference between my entry on Sweet Revenge and the entries Big Wind likes is that I have used more subheads. I am going to edit to eliminate some of the subheads, so the entry displays more like the Southern Comfort one -- as long-winded paragraphs. I'll bury the historical "Cooper Family Legacy" content in the paragraphs, just like the Southern Comfort entry, but without the head. It seems like Big Wind prefers his folklore to be buried in paragraphs, and not called out. Fine. Easy fix.

I'll make these changes today. And then please let me know what you think, as soon as possible. Thanks.

Let's please stick to the task of helping me learn your system. Period. I'm going to rewrite the entry in an effort to satisfy what I can of your criticisms -- so that I can learn how better to game the Wikipedia system. I want to help enrich the poor and sparse coverage in Wikipedia, on this subject, and I hope you both share this priority with me.

With respect to the picayune details of how to format footnotes and citations, I'm going to leave it to the community to help with that. They look fine to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebastian Lake (talk • contribs) 16:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it is better and depending on what Night of the Big Wind says, think it might be okay to move it to the article space. Just note that from that point on, other editors will be able to modify it at will. Technically they could now, but people generally don't. I'm a bit concerned that even if you did upload those pictures yourself, they aren't free images. Are you entirely positive that the logo is in the public domain? If it isn't, I would suggest requesting deletion of File:Sweet Revenge Liqueur logo.jpg and using a fair use rationale on File:Sweet Revenge Liqueur bottle.jpg. Then you could upload a picture of it poured into a shot glass which would be free. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi and thank you Ryan. I really appreciate the help and advice.

About those photos, yes I'm sure they are okay -- I just took them myself with my iPhone.

I am not clear how the entry moves from my "sandbox" space into the "article space". Is that something that I am authorized now to do, and if so, how do I do it? Sebastian Lake (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I am almost positive that it is a derivative work. That means it is a picture of something that is copyrighted and as such, can still only I see no information to confirm the idea that the label is not copyrighted. To move your page, please see Help:Moving pages. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

IHi, Ryan,

'm at a loss. If you purchase something that is for sale in a store and take your own photo of it, to include on a Wikipedia page, is that not acceptable use of something that is in the public domain? I don't understand. I'm looking at countless pages on Wikipedia that depict products and their logos -- including the pages that Big Wind said he likes. And I don't understand the difference. Please advise. Sebastian Lake (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I still think there may be a problem due to copyright of the logo on the bottle. I'm not sure enough to say that the article has to be deleted, but I will leave a message at Wikipedia:Media Copyright Questions to be sure. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ryan, are you saying that the entire article should be deleted, because you are unsure about the use of the photos of the package/bottle design, and the logo? Please advise. Again, I'm simply looking for a way to accommodate your requirements and Big Wind's recommendations. Sebastian Lake (talk) 03:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying that it might be possible that one of the images should be deleted. I asked at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Possible derivative works. If they determine that it is a derivative work, then we can only have one of the two images. If it isn't, we are fine. You can move your article now if you want, click the drop down menu to the right of the watchlist star. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Notability

As far as I can tell, the article has no references to reliable sources in the WP:RS sense. This is about a product introduced in 2012. Most sources referenced in the article are much older, and are referenced only to describe concepts discussed in the article – not the product itself. The only remaining possibly-objective source seems to be a reference to an article called "Explore: Spirit Specialties" in Taste Magazine Spring 2012. I found a copy of that issue of Taste Magazine at this link. However, I cannot find any article in it entitled "Explore: Spirit Specialties", and after quickly skimming the whole issue, I don't see any mention of this product. Moreover, the magazine seems to just be a liquor store marketing publication to advertise products – not really objective journalism. Is this the right publication? Are there any non-affiliated publications that really establish WP:NOTABILITY here? —BarrelProof (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, Barrel. My goodness, this item has really captured your attention. Could you please disclose the other Screennames or Wikipedia identities you have used, so the participants in this discussion can get a better sense of your history and the kinds of expertise you have been able to share with others? I noticed that you have recently created this new name, apparently, and it would help me to know more about the ways in which you have collaborated with others here. I have my eyes and ears open to identify balanced and well-informed Wikipedians with whom I can partner for mentoring.

In journalism, we cite sources to support different points. My sources were all originally tagged to precise moments in my text, rather than just bunched loosely at the bottom. I set it up more like pinpointed footnotes. That apparently did not comply with Wikipedia norms and was changed, no problem. But I mention this to explain that citing the trade publication crammed with advertorials (Taste magazine) was cited only to support that this product had entered the marketplace when I claimed it did. It is not an example of "objective journalism" -- it is evidence that what I say happened, did.

I cover a whole host of topics that fall in the genre of pop culture and style trends, and I have done this for a leading international newspaper as well as many of the top consumer magazines in the world. I am very much alert to the rise of something new and significant in my various subject matter, one of which is spirits, food, etc. This pink liqueur (if this were about my personal tastes, i can tell you right now, we would not be talking together tonight because to my taste it is just godawful!) is experiencing an explosion in the marketplace and appears to be a hugely significant market introduction by one of the scions of a family that has lately been hitting it out of the park, commerce-wise.

When consumers, or reporters, or trade professionals or parents of the teenagers or young adults to whom this product is being marketed turn to Wikipedia, i would like for them to find very current and properly informative information. I would like Wikipedia to be a vital source in this topic area. And so in addition to beginning with this entry, I am strategizing how best to flesh out more ultra-current and relevant entries. It is a steep learning curve, in terms of negotiating the Wikipedia process. But it would be wonderful to consider you -- as I do Ryan and Big Wind -- as a helpful collaborator, not an opponent. Do you think you could work with me in this regard? I'd really appreciate it.

And so, for a product that has been on the shelves for a matter of months and in only a few regions of the US as yet, there is very, very little proper source material to cite. Reviews and penetration in consumer magazines, for example, would only begin to appear in September in the US. And so as journalists and authors, we must dig and back up our hunches on whatever facts we can find. I'm sharing those with you and the entry includes any relevant back-up citations that are crucial to the piece. Please, be concrete -- concrete and specific -- about what else you would like to see to help bolster the article.

Thanks.

Sebastian Lake (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't consider you an adversary. There is a principle here that Wikipedia is not supposed to include what is known as "original research" (see WP:OR). It tries to rely on "reliable sources" (see WP:RS) and to have a "neutral point of view" (see WP:NPOV). I believe I haven't used any other screen names for alcoholic-beverage-related articles. I'm going to give this article a rest now. Believe it or not, I'm trying to improve the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you again for your comments, BarrelProof. All of the sources I've provided for citation are legit. The article/entry is crafted well, and is journalistically correct. Because you are the source of the obstacles, I'm asking you to work proactively to help solve what you perceive to be problems. I don't see them, and have tried to offer you a constructive conversation about why. I'm inviting you to steer me toward whatever improvements you'd like to see.

For example, I believe it was you who indicated that you would like to see a citation in support of the claim that Jacquin is the oldest liqueur house in the US. In addition to being literally stamped in the glass of many Jacquin brand bottles, can you suggest which of the following sources would be satisfactory to you?

http://www.wineryfinder.net/2011/01/charles-jacquin-et-cie-inc-philadelphia-pa

http://www.linkedin.com/company/charles-jacquin-et-cie.-inc.

http://www.jbws.org/documents/VendorList.pdf... etc.

I also have a wonderful little nugget from the Senate Finance committee, December 19, 1979, which includes the following sworn testimony: "STATEMENT OF PAUL STEFAN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, PRO- DUCTION AND QUALITY CONTROL, CHARLES JACQUIN ET CIE, INC. Mr. STEFAN. I am Dr. Paul Stefan, senior vice president, production and quality control for Charles Jacquin et Cie, Inc. The Jacquin firm is America's oldest cordial producer, founded in 1884. We are an independent company not owned by a major distiller. Our volume is approximately $76 million per year and we employ 300 people..."

Can you help me select from these citations?

BarrelProof, my request to know your other screen names was not because I'd like to know more about your thoughts about alcoholic beverages. I'm asking because I'd like to see how you've communicated constructively and collaborated with others on Wikipedia, and whether there is a track record for this kind of interaction.

Is it true that Wikipedia discourages the practice, or prefers that we not adapt multiple screen names? It seems to me that if one can assume multiple identities in this forum, it might promote less accountability, and perhaps create a venue where deliberately obstructionist or adversarial behavior is less likely to be detected.

Thank you in advance for your collaborative assistance in resolving any further obstacles to getting this entry posted to satisfactory standards, BarrelProof.

Sebastian Lake (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, I plan to back off and give this discussion a rest for the moment. I hope you don't interpret my lack of a quick response as hostile. Please feel free to proceed with edits to the article in my absence. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I find this to be the best. I'll be introducing it into the article. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to find some more sources, but google is broken right now. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello again (after a break of about a day and a half). To establish notability, there needs to be some references to reliable sources (someone reasonably objective – someone other than a manufacturer or seller of the product) that talk about the product in a credible and authoritative way that is sufficient to make it clear that the product is something important enough to write an encyclopedia article about. Establishing the mere existence of a product is not sufficient to establish that it is notable. Please see the WP:NOTABILITY policy description. This article currently does not have any such cited source. On another aspect – I notice that someone has removed the claim that Jacquin is the oldest liqueur producer in the US, so I suppose there is no longer a need to worry about finding a source to support that statement. In my opinion, that claim was somewhat irrelevant to this article anyway, so I support its removal. Regarding whether I have the ability to collaborate constructively with other editors, I invite you to review my edit history – I have made thousands of edits using this user ID. To answer your question about the policy regarding multiple accounts, my understanding is that Wikipedia recognizes that there are legitimate reasons that people sometimes have multiple accounts, and allows that practice as long as it is not abused (e.g. please see the WP:Multiple Accounts policy description). Of course, people can also use Wikipedia without establishing an account at all. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Ryan, (I know you are busy, so please just respond in a day or two when you have time!) I am seeing some traffic on this recent Observer post about Sweet Revenge, describing it as "The New It Liqueur". The post has been picked up on other blogs and is getting some amplification traffic. To me, this is more valuable than a manufacturer's press release, but in Wikipedia culture, is a worthy reference? If so, how would you include it in the entry? I tried to send the original blog link, but it was blocked by Wikipedia. If you enter these words in a Google search, it will be the top entry returned in the search: "brewhaha sweet revenge". You can also dodge the Wikipedia block by looking at this secondary link, where the original blog entry is picked up. > http://article.wn.com/view/2012/06/07/Sweet_Revenge_The_new_it_liqueur/ Sebastian Lake (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

This is entirely original research, but if a secondary source can confirm it the information would be useful.

While looking for sources I found this. It was in an unrelated article and said "Whiskey, like sweet revenge, is best served cold". It was not referring to Sweet Revenge (liqueur); it was referring to the concept of "sweet revenge". Could the liqueur have been named "Sweet Revenge" because it is best served cold? Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Ryan, I cannot spill any beans right now. But ironically, and magnificently, you have actually stumbled on, and hit the nail on the head. This is the source of the name, but it is not confirmed.

I am going to speak with the person responsible for the name, and see if I can pry lose a concession on this one. It would be fab to include. You are an unbelievable sleuth.

Sebastian Lake (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Just to let you know, hearing it confirmed by the person responsible will not be enough for inclusion. It would have to be published somewhere. Any newspaper or beverage review would suffice, an interview would be good. If none of those sources can be found, I assume that it will be added to the our-story page of Sweet Revenge's website someday. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Ryan. Well, I have no sway with what is posted to their site, but I'll be discussing this with my contact today. Also, please let me know if you hear any advice about photos -- particularly what exactly are the implications of permissions from the producer/distiller to release the photos for use on Wikipedia, etc. Sebastian Lake (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

With respect to the "sweet revenge" name, the source does not want to attribute. There are many riffs on "sweet revenge best served cold", and probably even so far back as from Shakespeare. The one you've mentioned is right on, but the source doesn't want to say so. I'd attempt to incorporate this in the entry, because it is of great interest to the reader given what we can see from Google Search traffic, but I suspect it would result in more nitpicking from BarrelHead and others. Sebastian Lake (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

See Revenge#Proverbially, which dates the proverbial appearance of "cold" paired with "revenge" at 1841 in French and 1846 in English (although without the word "sweet"). —BarrelProof (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, BarrelHead. That, and Shakespeare, or not Shakespeare, apparently! Seems like everybody's got some to serve. "Pierre Ambroise Francois Choderios de LaClos said in French in his 1782 book "La vengeance est un plat qui se mange froid", or so I just Groogled. Ryan Vesey guessed correctly about the name but there's resistance to saying so, and I'd need to find it through a second source anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebastian Lake (talk • contribs) 21:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

UGH. I keep forgetting to include the signature. Sorry! Sebastian Lake (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The 1782 quote is apparently popular but incorrect. That is discussed in the Revenge#Proverbially and Les Liaisons dangereuses articles. To quote from one of them: "The first written appearance of the proverb 'revenge is a dish best served cold' is often wrongly credited to the novel Les liaisons dangereuses (1782); it does not, in fact, appear there in any form." —BarrelProof (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Update JUNE 7 early am EST

Ryan Vesey, DMacks, Big Wind, BarrelProof, et al:

Thank you all for the many, many comments and changes to this entry. If I am posting this summary in the wrong place, or in an inconvenient place, please tell me where to put it so you and others will be more likely to find it.

Because there have been so many changes in these first 48 hours, the piece is beginning to sound "Frankensteined" -- like an assemblage of sometimes mismatched parts. So I am going to make some minor tweaks for grammar and flow. I plan to let the piece rest for today, and then take a fresh look.

I am mindful of our reader. I think the entry is now weaker because of some cuts that have gone too deep, and we've lost valuable detail. However, rather than continue to respond and edit back-and-forth, I'd like to collect any further recommendations for major changes, and then fix the piece comprehensively, with discussion with you for review. I'll post comments about any substantial revisions before making them, in an effort to achieve some consensus.

With respect to the photos, I have discussed with Ryan Vesey some plans for alternate approaches, which he is querying now, and I will be working on in the next 24 hours.

There have been some citations and sources added, deleted and changed. Does the piece still require additional citations, in your opinions? If so, can you suggest what areas need to be supported by additional citations, or what kinds of sources you would like to see?

Again, I appreciate your care and help with this, because I intend to create many more entries in this category, and I want to learn the Wikipedia style, and learn how to streamline the process, as quickly as possible.

Sebastian Lake (talk) 10:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Please also see comment above in another section of the Talk page. One thing that the article still needs is some citations to support notability. Please see the Wikipedia guidelines called WP:NOTABILITY. It would probably also be a good idea to review the guidelines known as WP:RS and WP:OR (including the discussion known as WP:PRIMARY). —BarrelProof (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

BarrelProof, you know I am a newbie to Wikipedia. But I have scrutinized the notability standards, such as they exist, and they do seem unevenly applied. I see on Wikipedia long, flatulent multi-page entries on pop songs, for example, which are in my opinion not notable. I have also discovered on Wikipedia a tedious array of larded entries on every imaginable brand of bourbon, edited by you, with very little substantial rationale for their inclusion in Wikipedia, at all.

It seems to me that one man's ceiling is another man's floor, when it comes to "notability." My best suggestion is that when you are dealing in good faith with an author who is from a professional journalism background, and genuinely seeks to learn the Wikipedia ropes, perhaps the better bet is to back off, live and let live. If you have some expertise to share, may i suggest that you discuss it with the author, rather than twist, cut and tweak entry text to such an extent that it frustrates both the author and the reader?

What we have now is arbitrary changes, followed by challenges to the references, followed by cuts to references because they no longer are relevant -- because you have arbitrarily made changes in the first place. It is annoying, BarrelProof, and I suspect that you would not much appreciate the same scrutiny and interference with your work. Sebastian Lake (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Another comment about references – currently, the article contains a reference to: Feller, Robyn M. (2003). The Complete Bartender. Berkley. ISBN 978-0-425-19013-5. What purpose does that reference serve? —BarrelProof (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Candidly, BarrelProof, I would invite you to sift through your many arbitrary changes to the Sweet Liqueur entry text, tracking back to the original draft. As I am from a journalism background, I did not, and will not, lard the entry with frivolous or excessive references. What were there, were there for substantiating reasons.

I have also written directly to you at great length to explain many of these references. If a reference no longer seems relevant to you, it is likely because you deleted the important detail in the entry text -- the reason the reference was included, in support, in the first place.

Because you refuse to properly discuss and submit your many, many changes before you simply slash through and make them, I am frankly unable to make sense of your work. Again, if my references no longer make sense to you, it is more than likely because you've so badly damaged the piece that tracing the original meaning will require you to do some work and backtracking.

Although I am not about to let the uninformed trample my work, I have tried to keep this out of the realm of personal. But I'm sure you'll understand that your many, many return visits to edit your edit of your edit of your edit of my original entry is beginning to sniff like personal attack and self-interest. Please consider the outcome, if tables were turned. I "sniff" lots of larded references in the few of your entries I've taken a look at. Among them, press releases written by the manufacturers you are shilling for in your entries. Instincts say: not so good.

At some point, I'm sure it will occur to folks much smarter than me, and more familiar with the Wikipedia processes, that there must be a reason you've fixated on my one, lowly little entry about the first sour mash liqueur. I'm crossing my fingers that it doesn't have to do with your personal interests or being a flack for bourbon distillers. Does it? Sebastian Lake (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey Sebastian, I'm a bit busy, in real life and on-wiki, but will go through the removed information when I get a chance. In the meantime, could you list here the information you would like to add or the diffs of inappropriate removals? Just in case you don't understand how to link to a diff, after you click view history you can check the boxes to the left of the preceeding edit and the one that removed the information then click compare selected revisions. For more information go to Help:Diff. In addition, I will work on recreating some section headings and then creating a lead because currently you could say that there is either no lead or no body to the article. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Like Ryan Vesey, I would also appreciate the identification of the specific edit actions that I have taken that have been inappropriate. Sebastian Lake seems to be accusing me of making many edits to the article that are improper in various ways, but without identifying the specific edits and what was wrong with them. I will admit that I am not perfect and may make mistakes, but I can't correct them or deny making them if I don't know exactly what they were. I will also admit that some other articles on Wikipedia, including some that I have edited, need improvement – although I believe my actions have been generally constructive toward trying to improve them and I think I generally welcome the efforts of others to do likewise. I have provided some edit explanation for every edit that I have made to this article, and I have only made 14 such edits total - clustered in 4 places in the edit history - and nearly all of those edits have been very small changes. Since being accused of hostility, I have substantially reduced my editing of the article to avoid the perception of being "fixated" and "trampling". At this point I am avoiding editing the article at all because of this – even though I think I see things that need changing. I don't really think I have done the things that I have been accused of. I asked above about the reason for inclusion of one specific reference. I haven't gotten an answer to that question other than to be accused of removing whatever may have justified that reference. I don't think I did that, although I don't know what the justification was, so I can't be sure. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, BarrelProof. Much appreciated.

As I am a newbie, I am not sure where best to post messages for you, and so I'll re-post a recent one, here. In one of your posts for Brown-Forman, there is a note about a citation needed for the acquisition by Brown-Forman of the Cooper Family brand Chambord. You can Groogle-search "acquire Chambord" to find a bunch of references including this one: http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/522796/brownforman_completes_chambord_acquisition/

Because you seem to be interested in Spirits, before I learned that it was Too Much Information, I had hoped to include some discussion of the Cooper Family Legacy in this piece. That acquisition by Brown-Forman provided the capital for the development of Canton, St. Germain, and Sweet Revenge, along with other new brands in development now. The rivalry alleged in the Wall Street Journal piece touches on this interesting three-generational legacy.

The perception of hostility was really about the frequent changes, without discussion. Because I am so awkward with the Wikipedia interface, it is still frustrating to backtrack and figure out when changes were made, by whom, and how to post queries and discussion about the changes. I'd much rather just talk about it first until there's some trust and collaboration established. I've said this several times, and it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. I'm really looking for collaboration and less nitpicking, or, perhaps nitpicking when it contributes to the authority of the piece and makes it Wikipedia-perfect.

Another point recently discussed is about "why this piece"? I've asked you a few questions, unanswered, hoping to understand the intense scrutiny. In fact, you may have some insight about this: Ryan has encouraged me to look at existing spirits/liquor topics. I found wikipedia:spins. Have you seen it? This piece is larded with references and citations, but when you dig in, you discover that it really is almost a spoof, and reads like a fraternity prank. There's all kinds of dangerous pseudomedicine and unsubstantiated, but rigorously cited, detail. What would you say about this entry, and how would you comment or change it? As I get to know Wikipedia, and read about the editing process, I've learned that "not seeing the forest for the trees" is an unfortunate result of the way we edit -- and the famous comment that unless we truly work together collaboratively, an entry is only as good as the last person who touched it.

There's no need to back off, if your aim is cooperation. I see gaps in Wikipedia coverage of the kinds of stuff I've written about for a long time. I put myself in the shoes of the reader, and hope to raise the level of this content by building more informative entries. However, this one simple entry on Sweet Revenge has required such a massive amount of finessing and tweaking, it has been somewhat discouraging. I like to get things done, and it seems to me that a more collaborative interaction would help.

Thank you again, BarrelProof. Please advise if I can be of any further help with your posts for Brown-Forman or others.Sebastian Lake (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference about the Chambord acquisition by Brown-Forman. I have added a citation for that to the Brown-Forman article. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem. There's a bunch if you don't want to use the one from Brown-Forman. That was really a lot of cash, or so it seems to me! Sebastian Lake (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It would be better to cite a secondary source rather than the company itself, but the company seems better than nothing — and I was feeling a bit too lazy to dig up a better source than the one you offered. We're drifting a bit off-topic here, but if you can provide a better source for the Brown-Forman article, I'd be happy to add it. Yes – they'll need to sell a lot of bottles of booze to profit from that $255M purchase. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I am partial, naturally, but I'd go with this one. http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2006/03/16/brown-forman-adds-chambord-to-liquor-cabinet

Sebastian Lake (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I added a reference to that. On Proof66, I see that the retail price of Chambord is about $33 per bottle. If we assume Brown-Forman sells it to distributors for about $12.75 per bottle, and assume that the production costs are about half that much per bottle, they would need to sell 40M bottles to break even on that purchase. However, I notice that after buying the brand, they seem to have also started using the brand name on other products – now there is a Chambord brand of flavored vodka. Perhaps the intent to create a broader brand family was part of the purchase decision. But I guess we should return to the discussion of "Sweet Revenge" here, and take discussions of other subjects elsewhere. My Talk page is one potential place for that. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It does seem to be the M.O. with them, the brand amplification and diversification, the Jack Daniel's barbecue sauce, etc. I am only beginning to learn but have been stunned to hear a little about the margins in the spirits business. There is so much to discuss, I agree. Going to bed now but look forward to more, BarrelProof. Sebastian Lake (talk) 03:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

Can someone please add infobox beverage to this article? The documentation is at {{Infobox beverage}}. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)