Talk:Dubonnet/Archive 1

Archive 1

WTF is a mixologist?

A disease suffered by rabbits, obviously. Lec CRP1 19:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a term for a bartender- one who is particularly skillful, or pretentious. William "Cocktail" Boothby used the term in his 1891 book "The World's Drinks" and may have coined it.

Add campaigns

The more famous add campaign in the 1960s stared French comedian Fernandel. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20060610/ai_n16477974 There are plenty of references because it was so well known but I haven't found a good encyclopaedic one yet.--Aspro (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Blanc unavailable in Canada?

There's a note on the page about Dubonnet blanc being unavailable in Canada? I'm a bar manager at a Canadian restaurant in British Columbia, and we carry Dubonnet Blanc. It is ordered through the same company as the BC Liquor Stores, so if they don't have it on shelf it can probably be ordered in, but it's definitely not unavailable Brandx0 (talk) 11:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Dubonnet Blanc has been discontinued. --Ethanbentley (talk) 07:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Anachronism

The first sentence of this article reads: "Dubonnet is a wine-based aperitif similar to Buckfast Tonic Wine." Given that Dubonnet is older and much more famous worldwide than Buckfast Tonic Wine, it would make more sense to rephrase the aforementioned sentence, so as to avoid the suggestion of any anachronisms. And perhaps even include instead the following sentence in the article for Buckfast Tonic Wine: "Buckfast Tonic Wine is a wine-based aperitif similar to Dubonnet." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.238.71 (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, most people under the age of 60 have never heard of Dubonnet but they have heard of Buckfast. Therefore when they look up Dubonnet it is helpful to have a reference point to which they can relate. Which product was developed first is neither here not there; the statement doesn't make any claim that one product imitates the other, merely that they are similar. It is not an anachronism and could only be thought so if the Wiki article purported to have been written prior to the invention of Buckfast. Otherwise you'd have a situation where the Wikipedia page on Nigeria could not mention that its capital was Abuja because Nigeria was established as a nation state before Abuja was constructed - and a host of similar situations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.142.249.81 (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This isn't true. Other than sharing a wine-base, they are not similar. Their recipe is different. Their origin is different. Their perception is different. This would be like saying Cognacs and Brandies are the same because they come from grapes.

Why so insistent on having Buckfast in the Dubonnet entry? Josh Hafer (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Because Buckfast is the only tonic wine that most people under the age of 60 have heard of. It is a reference point for them and without it the concept of tonic wine is meaningless. Of course the recipes are different just the same as recipes for Coca Cola, Pepsi Cola and own brand cola are all different - but they are in the same general style. If you had to describe one you would probably want to do so with reference to another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.142.249.81 (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm under 60, and I've never heard of Buckfest, or seen it on sale. Is it strictly a British Isles thing? If so, I'd suggest removing the reference, as it won't mean anything to most Wikipedia readers. Also, it sounds like a down-market product, which is surely misleading wrt Dubonnet. Not something the Queen is likely drink in her favorite cocktail, eh?24.69.174.26 (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, 165.142.249.81, what's the problem? Why so insistent? Seriously, they're not the same. Similarly, Dubonnet is an aromatized wine not a fortified wine. There is no spirit added to Dubonnet. Why aren't you similarly concerned about incorrect points in Buckfast's page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Hafer (talk • contribs) 21:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Comparison to Tonic wine

There seems to be an insistance on inserting the phrase "similar to Buckfast Tonic Wine" in the lead of this article. This is an unverifiable editorial statement that without any reference to support it, is about as relevent as saying Coffee is a drink similar to Tea. Mighty Antar (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Well in terms of social usages, coffee is similar to tea. Moreover, both drinks are based on an infusion in hot water and are commonly drunk with milk and sugar. The phrase "would you like a tea or a coffee" is in common parlance. It seems to me that you have highlighted the usefulness of the Dubonnet-Buckfast link. For well over a year, the Dubonnet page had a reference to Buckfast that didn't seem to cause anyone any great difficulty. Why is there a sudden insistence on deleting the link - most of the arguments marshalled for deleting the link seem quite spurious.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.142.249.81 (talk) 02:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the trouble to discuss this. Regardless of whether or not you personally think it's useful, is it verifiable? If you can find a source that supports such a prominant direct comparison in the lead then it should stay, otherwise it's simply your opinion. Both products already appear in the fortified wine category [1]. If I'd seen your reference a year ago I'd have deleted it then for the same reason. Dubonnet is leading brand widely distributed around the globe whereas Buckfast is virtually unknown outside the UK and Ireland. I apologise if you think my reasons for deleting the link appear spurious, I suggest you read the essay on Wikipedia:VerifiabilityMighty Antar (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

How can you have a source to make a comparison? A comparison is its own source, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.118.43 (talk) 04:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

As I said to you above, I suggest you read the essay on Wikipedia:Verifiability. Mighty Antar (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Please don't continue edit war over this. Ask for a second opinion at WP:3O. If this IP user continues to edit against an established consensus, they will be blocked. For now, I have semi-protected the article due to IP sockpuppetry. Thank you. — Satori Son 18:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

How is this sock puppetry? I'm not setting up accounts or pretending to be other people. I'm simply the person who spent a lot of time cleaning up this page a couple of years ago including the reference to Buckfast. Then along comes Mighty Antar and starts editing me all over the place. He's the vandal, not me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.142.249.81 (talk) 03:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

OK - you want evidence. Here's what a search of the Internet throws up: http://www.thisisdevon.co.uk/Don-t-blame-monks-Buckie-drunks/story-11446449-detail/story.html or http://www.blackbookcooking.com/dubonnet or http://www.classicmixology.com/ingredient/dubonnet or http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/1094/0053285.doc or http://www.clashmusic.com/feature/10-best-and-worst-songs-about-cities. Enough references? Now please can we leave this page unmolested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.142.249.81 (talk) 05:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This isn't evidence Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and I'm not editing you, I'm editing the article. Sorry if this upsets you, perhaps if you could try to clarify why this particular phrase is so critical to this article rather than simply ranting, we might make progress. Mighty Antar (talk) 16:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I came here because of the "third opinion" request. As a total non-drinker, I'll concede I'm not familiar with wine terminology or with the beverages in question, but from the standpoint of commenting impartially, maybe that's a good thing here.

The sources proposed by the nameless multi-IP-address editor (I'm assuming here that it's just one editor and not a bunch of like-minded people) don't seem to me to support the claim at all. The "This Is Devon" page compares Buckfast to a combination of several flavours (including Dubonnet), but that's not the same as saying Dubonnet is similar to Buckfast. The "Clash Music" page mentions Dubonnet and Buckfast in the same paragraph, but the connection is not at all obvious to me (and any more involved attempts at interpretation would surely run afoul of Wikipedia's prohibition on "original research"). The Scotland government document mentions Dubonnet and Buckfast together (along with other drinks) in each of two different questions, but again, I don't think this is nearly enough to support the specific claim under discussion. The "Black Book Cooking" and "Classic Mixology" pages appear to be based heavily on each other and/or the Wikipedia article (danger of a circular reference) — and even if the phrasing is original to one or the other of these sites, we would need to explore the reliability (reputation, degree of editorial oversight, promotionality, etc.) of the sites.

So, at the moment, I'm inclined to say that the Dubonnet article should not say, in its opening sentence, that Dubonnet is similar to Buckfast.

I would urge the nameless multi-IP-address editor to read (or re-read) Wikipedia policies such as WP:NOR (no original research) and WP:RS (reliable sources) — as well as the policies on "edit warring" (WP:EW) and "disruptive editing" (WP:DIS). You should not engage in edit warring, even if you are convinced that you are right and that other editors are wrong. And assuming that all or most of the various IP-address edits are coming from the same person (via addresses dynamically assigned by an Internet service provider), I would also recommend that this person seriously consider creating and using an account (see WP:ACCOUNT); this would reduce confusion, inspire greater confidence on the part of other editors that he/she intends to play by the rules and act as part of the overall Wikipedia editor community, and will also allow him/her to keep editing even if a page is "semi-protected" to reduce disruption — though please understand that using an account does not exempt an editor from the obligations to respect policy, cooperate with the consensus process, and refrain from any sort of disruptive activity. Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Since the dispute seems to be continuing, I've taken the following steps:

1. I edited the article myself, moving the Buckfast comparison to the end and rephrasing it as "Dubonnet has been said to be similar to Buckfast Tonic Wine". This way, the claim is not being given what some see as undue weight, and we are reporting the claim rather than stating it as a settled fact. I don't imagine others will be overjoyed at this change, but I'm hoping it will be accepted as a compromise.
2. I used the "contact us" form on Classic Mixology's web site, asking them to comment on the source of their information about Dubonnet. Their answer (assuming they do reply to me) may help us evaluate the level of reliability of this source.
3. I alerted the admin (Satori Son) who previously (July 29) semi-protected this article, advising him that the edit war appears to have resumed even after a third opinion, in case he might feel it appropriate to take further action.

I would urge everyone involved to discuss this issue here on the article's talk page, make a good-faith effort to reach a consensus, and avoid even the superficial impression that they are simply digging in their heels, defying or ignoring attempts at compromise, and hoping that proponents of other views will just go away.

Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Richwales. There are loads of much better sourced Dubonnet is "similar to" comments out there for Vermouth or Lillet so I still think there is more to this than meets the eye but I'm quite happy to stick with this compromise for now. Hopefully someone else will come along with more constructive material before long. Mighty Antar (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

As the "sockpuppet" with multiple IDs (actually just two computers in different locations) I am content with this compromise. I should add that I have not tried to deceive anyone by using different computers or pretended to be multiple people - I just can't be fagged in registering and remembering yet another web identity and password. Life would be so much simpler if sites which didn't actually need logins didn't require them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.142.249.81 (talk) 02:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I can't speak for others, but for the record, I realized/assumed from the start that you were one person with multiple IP addresses. Some people are touchy about any possible hint of sockpuppetry, and people have debated the whole "unregistered editing" thing back and forth for years. I do still feel that if you're planning on doing a lot of work here, you would be much better off with an account. There are so many advantages to using an account that, in my opinion, they massively outweigh any inconvenience of having to remember "yet another web identity and password". If you just aren't willing to do that, a sort-of "account lite" alternative might be to pick a reasonably distinctive nickname and "sign" your edit summaries and talk page comments with it, so other editors will realize you're one and the same person and will have some way of referring to you (other than "the multi-IP editor" or "that bloke who uses multiple IP addresses and won't get an account"). Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Being familiar with both products and a wider knowledge of fortified wines and vermouths I cannot see by what criteria Buckfast Tonic can be compared to Dubonnet - certainly not in terms of taste or use. --Ethanbentley (talk) 07:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Since Buckfast was originally made to a French recipe (now changed) I can only guess that this recipe was assumed (correctly or incorrectly) to have been Dubonnet - and there are hints of Dubonnet in Buckfast. But the aggressive additional flavours in modern Buckfast make it a very different drink. Perhaps the comment about the drinks' supposed similarity has endured because there is some humour in the contrast between the stereotypical demographics of Buckfast and Dubonnet drinking.

As Classic Mixology still has that observation on the linked source, and since I can find no published source refuting it, I suppose we're stuck with this statement for the moment, in defiance of common sense. Happydemic (talk) 08:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Mardi Gras picture

@'Ff'lo: has reverted my correction to the caption of File:Echo du Mardi Gras - Publicité pour Dubonnet.jpg without explanation. The caption saying Mardi Gras and the fact that there are other people in disguise makes the "fanciful" comment misleading. The intended readers know that these are not the real Napoleon and Pompadour but people in disguise. --Error (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Error: You have a comma splice as it is now. -- 'Ff'lo

Quinine content history

Does Dubonnet in 2021 contain the same amount of quinine that the original did? If not, it would be interesting to know. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)