Talk:Glenmorangie distillery

Scotland Mid‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spirits Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirits, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spirits or Distilled beverages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritsWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritsTemplate:WikiProject SpiritsSpirits

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spirits WikiProject task list:

This list is transcluded from the tasks page, to edit it click here.

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Spirits:

Tagging all articles that fall under our scope with {{WikiProject Spirits}} and assessing their quality and importance to the project.

Brands Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

NPOV dispute

Since the reinstatement of a number of edits by Darryl.smith and a couple of amendments re consistency and date-accuracy, there have been no further comments re the article's content. On the understanding that the dispute is resolved, I am removing the NPOV flag. If anyone considers that examples of POV-pushing remain, then please restore the flag and list the examples here, so that they can be discussed and resolved. Apologetic22 (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The changes or "overhaul" at Glenmorangie since the acquisition of Glenmorangie by LVMH in 2004 (disposal of some brands, end of own-label business etc) was the main subject of my additions to the existing article, as I tried to explain below. I certainly did not intend to suppress information, merely to update and tidy up what existed already. But I accept I erred in trying to tidy up the Tayburn section (now restored - and thank you for making the small edits I suggested to this section) without retaining the comments re the new focus on developing an "international luxury brand" - which has been discussed and recorded in many newspaper articles and other published material, and which certainly do not clash with my own POV. I'll leave it to others to identify what further changes should be made to ensure the removal of the dispute flag. Apologetic22 (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Apologetic22 (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iain (Apologetic22), the overhaul of Glenmorangie following the acquisition by LVMH is relevant to the brand's story and should remain. I hope this isn't another example of you wishing to suppress information which sits uncomfortably with your own point of view. Darryl.smith (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following the guidelines, here are suggestions re resolving this particular NPOV dispute. I don't know who should make the final decision on this.

Some of the edits made to the "Glenmorangie" article were of a purely factual nature: by 7 April 2009, updates were required due to developments since the original article was completed. For example,

The Glenmorangie Company had ceased to produce blended whiskies for supermarkets and other “own brand” customers.

Had sold the Glen Moray Distillery and the Highland Queen brand.

Had extended the stillhouse to accommodate 12, not 8 stills.

Had introduced new “expressions” of Glenmorangie such as Signet, and no longer bottled some others.

No longer leased casks to Heaven Hill

In addition, the Drambuie had announced that it was to leave Broxburn in January 2010.

It seems sensible to keep this updated information, for factual accuracy.

Re the opening sentence - I would argue that as there are two commonly-held versions of the meaning of the Gaelic toponym “Glenmorangie”, and so it seemed sensible to give both in the first sentence, rather than relegate one to a footnote. That does not imply that one is “more” factually correct than the other. Does anyone have a contrary view?

Many people will be interested in the Professor's opinions re the business direction of The Glenmorangie Co. However, the Tayburn section seems disproportionately long and (in my opinion) sits uncomfortably in the story. If it is decided to retain it, I'd suggest that the spelling of "curvavious" is corrected, and the date of the acquisition of Glenmorangie by LVMH is altered from 2007 to 2004 (the date is given correctly earlier in the article, so an amendment is required to avoid inconsistency).

It would be useful if anyone who has spotted specific examples of biased comments or "puffery" of products would flag them up, up, so they can be edited.

Finally, I believe this article could be greatly simplified and improved by splitting it in two - one article about Glenmorangie (the distillery and the whisky), and the other about The Glenmorangie Company (its corporate history and current business affairs), always accepting that there will be some duplication of information. I think this split would work well for other articles concerning companies which share their name with their primary products. Apologetic22 (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biased editing

Darryl.smith, could you please identify the specific comments by "other users" re suppressed and/or addy coments, in order that those concerns can be addressed and action taken. Apologetic22 (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While entering informtion (under 87.80.19.149) on the redesign of Glenmorangie, I noticed that previous edits by users appear to have been supressed in order to convey a very biased pro Glenmorangie point of view. Other users have noted quite an 'addy' tone to this article, and so I am flagging this. I have reinstated one particular edit by the user Evercat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darryl.smith (talk • contribs) 15:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am the offender identified here. I contributed solely on my own behalf, seeking to add additional information to the entry. I apologise for any perceived POV-pushing, and inappropriate editing. The multiple user names are down to forgetfulness over the years I have been contributing. Apologetic22 (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, I am responsible for the contributions under the usernames WilliamMatheson and subsequently AndrewMaitland. I don't pretend to represent the views of the other users who submitted information and edits. Apologetic22 (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Glenmorangie' sock puppets at work

Please note that the following users are suspected as being sockpuppets and have been blocked by Wikipedia. Glenmorangie, AndrewMaitland, Iainr, IainRuss, WilliamMatheson, and 82.12.117.210. Several of these users have been active in editing this article, and in doing so pushing a particular POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darryl.smith (talk • contribs) 15:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

I'm trying to come up with a citation for the pronunciation. Is this page from the University of Edinburgh a sufficient citation? http://www.dcs.ed.ac.uk/home/jhb/whisky/pronounc.html It is linked from a few websites. Also, this forum http://www.whiskymag.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8852 has a response that describes a compound word has the accent on the first syllable of the second part of the compound (but I didn't search for general pronunciation references). It makes sense to me that the name is emphasized, not the "glen".

Glenmorangie's former website had an audio clip right on the home page - too bad it's gone with the new flashy-flash website.

In this case, I would cite the pronunciation, but not the claim that it is commonly mispronounced (which it is, in my experience).

goodeye (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. goodeye (talk) 02:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's silly to require a citation for what is common knowledge in the relevant quarters - the name is indeed often mispronounced as stated, and it is informative to know so (cf. above). Any supposedly authoritative citation would be based primarily on this very knowledge, but the fact that Glenmorangie used to draw attention to the correct pronunciation implies the fact. (I seem to remember an advert to this effect, and possibly its appearance on packaging. Perhaps someone could research/confirm either or both.) 77.100.218.175 (talk) 03:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bottle and carton Image

The photograph at the foot of the article shows the post-2005 carton for Glenmorangie Original along with the pre-2005 bottle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Walter33 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Glenmorangie distillery. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 13:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]