Talk:Armand de Brignac

Untitled

It seems to me that 70.23.224.185 and Tamec are POV pushing with this article. If you look at the histories of both users, just about every single article edited is the Armand de Brignac article.

70.23.224.185 has been making edits on the article since January of 2007 in which they "removed 'controversy' section due to lack of citation for 'october press release' mentioned and speculative tone, out of place in wikipedia." The guidelines of Wikipedia state that if something lacks citation, you should add citation needed to it and post on the talk page about it and not just remove it. Tamec also created the initial article, which if you read it sounds just like an advertisement. Tall Midget (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is still skewed, but now it's in the opposite direction with claims about the brand that are not backed up by any evidence: 1. Where is the press release that claims that it 'enjoyed success' etc...? All I see is a secondary reference in the BusinessWeek article and a dead link from there.

2. You bring up the ProHipHop and Hiphopgame stories as though they are factual. Saying "have suggested..." is fine, but the following sentence makes an unacceptable leap by calling the brand a 'rebranding' outright, positing an 'agressive urban marketing campaign' (where???), and theorizing that 'non-vintage' status makes a Champagne 'illegitimate', which is untrue if you know anything about Champagne: "This is not, in itself, a spurious act, but such a substantial price differential between original and rebranded form (an increase from US $40 to US $300 retail), an aggressive urban marketing campaign, and non-vintage status would undermine claims that the new bottling is an authentic prestige cuvée."

3. Another unacceptable leap is made when you say "The Sovereign Brands press release itself suggests such rebranding, stating that "Cattier’s gold bottle also made an appearance at Queen Elizabeth II of England's Golden Jubilee celebration" without explicitly identifying the bottling in question by name as Armand de Brignac."

Based on my own conversations with the importers and the producers, it IS the same gold bottle (which was used for another brand, possibly the Antique Gold, in the Queen's event), but the Champagne is different. Just because two Champagnes use the same bottle does not mean one is a 'rebranding' of another, and to offer this as fact is incorrect and out of place here. I have made some edits that I think are fair by removing the erroneously 'factual' data and inserting some verbage that identifies opinion as opinion. Tamec (talk) 14:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Tamec, the exact quote from the original press release is "The brand is making its North American debut this year, after enjoying success as a premium, high-end brand in France" and the release is still available online if you look for it.

What's of interest is that the product in question was advertised in that press release using claims that even Sovereign won't directly attribute to said product (i.e. "Cattier’s gold bottle"). Is Sovereign Brands equating two Cattier bottlings or not? It is not fair to quote their own press release where it is ambiguous about this product given how it is being positioned in the market? If the comparison is so "incorrect", why then the ambiguity in Sovereign's own press release? Finally, why is Cattier not holding this bottling up as their own prestige cuvée?

Your edits went further than the Antique Gold comments, however, as you now seem interested in playing down the fact that few cuvées positioned this high in the market are blends. Please respect that people looking for information on champagne need to know this information.unsigned comment added by 142.106.188.82 (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You (don't know who I'm talking to, but I'm guessing it's someone from ProHipHop or HipHopGame given the angle and vitriol) have some of the same NPOV problems. I don't know what you think you know about Champagne, but it's clearly not much. Again there is no reference to this original press release that I can find other than a secondary source, so please help me out there. I don't understand your confusion about the bottle issue - I agree it's ambiguous, but I understand the circumstance to be the following: 1. Cattier made use of a gold bottle for other Champagnes, including one that was served at the Queen's Jubilee 2. Armand de Brignac, a new cuvee for Cattier, also uses this bottle, but given the timing was probably not the Champagne served at that event. You also don't seem to understand much about marketing if you have such a big problem with Sovereign and Cattier attempting to use a "gee whiz" point like that to help with their brand. You've clearly got an agenda.Tamec (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Tamec, it's very funny for you to accuse anyone here of an agenda given your history with this article. Your bias is strong and obvious, and your own POV push has been heavy handed.

I have no tie to (nor do I even read) the sites you mentioned. I come at this topic from the perspective of someone who does have a long-standing interest in Champagne, and I know more than you think I do. The NV comment is simply to show another way that this bottling differs from others it is positioned against (and come on, now you spin it as a strength ["traditional"] but had avoided mention of NV in the article previously). While I think it is appropriate for this bottling to be described in terms that accurately depict its relationship with Cattier and their other bottlings, what is most important to describe is the relationship to other prestige cuvees (not simply other Champagne) given how it is being positioned in the market. I love Champagne, that's the extent of my interest. I'm not sure you can say the same.

Why have you not pressed me to cite something for the claim about pricing at the 40/40 club? Is it because you already know the figure is correct, or because it's flattering to this product?

After looking at your latest edits, you've clearly gone off the deep end. I'm not sure what your bias is, but I also don't believe that you're not the same person who writes for at least one of those sites. It doesn't make sense otherwise - you constantly link to the same pieces of completely speculative journalism on one of the sites. The "Elite Champagne Imports" company is not related at all to the Armand de Brignac brand, and if you did some actual reporting for your site instead of the muckracking you're actually doing, you'd discover that Elite's rights to distribute Cattier in the U.S. were actually revoked at the beginning of the year. Thus, they have an agenda to try and take down the Cattier's brands and harm their public image. But that's not important on your little witch hunt, is it?

I removed some of your most bullshit additions and left some of the others.Tamec (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, there's no need to resort to profanity. It's pretty obvious that you're either a PR person or marketer working for Sovereign Brands or associated with them somehow. I find it hard to believe that you're just "someone who does have a long-standing interest in Champagne", yet you only edit this article and you care so you care so much about it seeing as you say "Based on my own conversations with the importers and the producers" and are so knowledgeable about the product.

It's pretty obvious that someone from Sovereign Brands has already pov-pushed with this article. If you look up the hostname of 70.23.245.17, you'll see it resolves to pool-70-23-245-171.ny325.east.verizon.net Which is right in New York, New York, where Sovereign Brands is located.

So do you work for Sovereign Brands or have any financial interest in this article? I'm not associated with ProHipHop, Hiphopgame or any beverage producers. I don't even drink Champagne, i'm just an ardent Wikipedia user. If you could check out this article it would be helpful: What_wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox Tall Midget (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't work for Sovereign Brands nor to I have a financial interest in the article. And it wasn't me who wrote "someone who does have a long-standing interest in Champagne"...that was someone else who has been editing this page. I AM in NYC, though I'm not sure if what you refer to was one of my edits....in case you didn't know, it's a pretty big city - I'm not sure why an NYC IP address would make it "pretty obvious" where exactly something was coming from. I don't have a problem with different viewpoints and evidence being expressed on this page, but what I do have a problem with, as I've been saying for the past several weeks, is having speculation by what can colloquially be referred to as "haters" on some of these "Hip Hop Journalism" websites being presented here as fact - as in, stating the brand unequivocally IS "a rebadging of Antique Gold" simply because a jilted importer said so in an interview with someone who has a negative agenda anyway. I don't mind the article stating that this point has been asserted, but unless it's the producer who's saying so, who made this a fact to be listed in the objective description of the product? At this point half of the article is the "Controversy" section and anything else is ripped as sounding like an advertisement, POV, etc. That's soapboxing more than anything I've added. Tamec (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine, Tamec. You want attribution over all other considerations? You got it. I'll edit with more attribution and quotes, some from Mr. Cattier himself. You need to calm down though, and stop being so combative and paranoid; there are several people editing this article and you're attributing every edit you don't like to whoever happens to reply to you. The notion that anyone here is editing in an attempt to hurt Cattier is silly. Cattier has long made great Champagne, their NV is up there for me with Ruinart and Feuillatte, I wish them the the best. But we still need to depict what is happening here. You're right, it does read heavily on controversy right now. When we have RP and others scoring this bottle, independent tasting notes, awards given, etc. that will be amazing to include here, hell I'll put it up -- but right now there's nothing concrete coming out of Sovereign Brands about this Champagne other than press releases appealling to suspect historicity.

---

"Hu12" - Don't revert the article back to a state where it has FEWER references and attributions. Address specific quotes or references if you need to do so. I already removed one unfair reference AND added information about upcoming variations to balance this more. You have already been cited (and blocked) by at least one other article for vandalism, please don't bring that here.

---

162.83.173.223 - You do realize your two recent edits to the discussion are still in the history for this page, right? Just because you keep removing them, doesn't mean they go away. Please explain your edits in comments to the rest of those here.

---

I have reorganized the article to balance it better and put a more concise controversy section in better context. It would be good to have a discussion here in 'talk' to see if we can all get past the previous NPOV issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.106.188.82 (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

What does everybody think about this? Tall Midget (talk) 09:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note that this is being discussed at WP:ANI

I have also left a note at Tamec's talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge suggestion

Now that Cattier (champagne) exists, perhaps the relevant material on Armand de Brignac could be merged with that article? While the marketing phenomenon of this brand is interesting (not the least because their less-than-factual claims seems to have sparked some controversy) it seems a bit excessive to have a separate Wikipedia article on every cuvée or bottle design of small- to medium-sized champagne houses. Tomas e (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Support-It is consistent with how most other wine brands are treated. Armand de Brignanc doesn't have the long history of a Dom Perignon or Cristal that would warrant a separate article. It is similar to the many brands of Robert Mondavi and E & J Gallo Winery that we keep limited to the main article on parent winery. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

---

I'm undecided on this. First, there's a pop culture relevance to this article beyond the champagne relevance but if this could be all captured within the Cattier article, maybe that's good enough? Two things though, Cattier doesn't seem to embrace this brand as their own (a quick glance at the Cattier site confirms this), and there also seems to be interest in making this brand a line of cuvées, is it still best to merge it with those points in mind? Second, would the marketeers behind this product not just re-add their own page back post-merge, or turn their attentions to the Cattier article as a whole? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.106.188.82 (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Embraced or not, I haven't seen any information to indicate that the producer is anyone else than Cattier. When we're discussing relevant content on Wikipedia, please note the following:

1. Champagne, as an AOC wine, can never be "just a brand". Appellation rules require that the producer is stated on the label, together with its status letters (such as "RM" or "NM") and number. Often in very small print, though. Some producers may operate under several registered names, but a champagne can never be anonymous as to its producer, since it must be traceable to show that it's genuine. Wikipedia articles on champagnes should be written with those facts straight. By the way, if a bottle says "Champagne" without those data, it is not champagne, but must be assumed to be a fake. And by the way, the champagne organization CIVC is known for heavier litigation and quicker reflexes than anyone else in the wine world.

2. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a forum for advertising, I don't see second-guessing what any marketeers would do as relevant to writing an encyclopedic article. The notability of this champagne is highly questionable, and I notice that contributors to this article have already been accused of POV-pushing. So the tolerance level for repeats of that kind of bevahiour must be rather low on the subjects of Cattier and Armand de Brignac. My merge suggestion was a way to handle this without going to AfD extremes.

Tomas e (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

---

There's no disagreement I've seen anywhere that this is a Cattier champagne and as far as I know the entire reason the 'Armand' name was appended was due to push from CIVC. It's only been the last few weeks that pieces of this article stopped mysteriously disappearing, maybe that phase is finally over with. I share your concern about the realistic notability of this champagne and perhaps a merge itself would best lend balance and more properly depict the situation at hand. There has been POV push in both directions from a few here though. Thanks for the comments.

162.83.173.223 - your last edit practically qualifies as vandalism, edit specific sections and leave comments instead of this silliness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.106.188.82 (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Frederick day - I don't understand your edits as they are removing words that indicate the uncertainty of the product's history and reinforcing the fact that the product 'did not previously exist' which doesn't seem to be verified anywhere for sure...what's the basis for your edits?~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.173.223 (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I support Frederick's edits, as we know from Cattier (via WSJ) that the name "Armand" was specifically chosen for this collaboration / brand (and was not part of the original de Brignac moniker). The implication of "not publically available" does not square with the public record thus far; it is in fact an intimation intended to support the notion that this bottling was previously "established", which again does not seem borne out in the WSJ comments from Mr. Cattier himself. I am growing very weary of this selective pattern of behaviour where any favourable comparison with previous Cattier efforts (history, tradition, similar bottle to one at Jubilee, etc.) is dramatically overstated, while any unflattering comparisons to the exact same Cattier name (e.g. the vast price differential between this and any other NV Cattier cuveé, subsequent comparison to Clos de Moulin from Cattier's tasting, relative lack of stature of this brand, etc.) is repeatedly played down by the same individuals. Enough already with this transparent nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.106.188.82 (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear not-so-anonymous friends at 162.83.173.223, however it is that you know exact release dates, please don't cite them using the Brignac official site as a reference if the dates don't actually appear there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.106.188.82 (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Look at WineSearcher, the Rose is available now. Isn't saying it's out already (even if there's no clear place that says when) better than saying it's not?~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.175.195 (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop attempting to use this article to direct people to online stores. Such actions are a blatant violation of what Wikipedia's about and you continue to abuse your privileges here. LET IT GO. Do your marketing somewhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.106.188.82 (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The same people continue to water down this article. Removing information such as statements from the people selling this champagne, and quotes from Cattier, without any rationale is not acceptable. Stop doing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.106.188.82 (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The whitewashing continues in 2010. STOP IT. Do you folks realize how obvious you're being? Don't you know that every single reader of this article can see the edit history and these comments? You're fooling nobody. Let the record stand, and stop the incessant watering down of this piece for your own ends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.106.188.99 (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Armand de Brignac. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070113012428/http://www.prohiphop.com:80/2006/11/prohiphop_cover.html to http://www.prohiphop.com/2006/11/prohiphop_cover.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Tone

Is it me, or is this article way too salesy? It's like reading one of their adverts rather than what should be an objective article.

Armand de Brignac Champagne

Armand de Brignac Champagne 2603:7080:6C3B:5C08:38B2:FF6E:5410:B147 (talk) 05:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)